Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association : successful coopertive Maclachlan, Morag Elizabeth 1972

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1972_A8 M32_6.pdf [ 17.12MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101761.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101761-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101761-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101761-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101761-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101761-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101761-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101761-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101761.ris

Full Text

THE FRASER VALLEY MILK PRODUCERS' ASSOCIATION: SUCCESSFUL COOPERATIVE by Morag E l i zabeth Maclachlan B .Ed , ( s e c ) , The Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1964 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of History We accept th is thes is as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ••' A p r i l , 1972; In present ing th is thes is in p a r t i a l f u I f i l m e n t , o f . the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ib ra ry sha l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I fu r ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th is t h e s i s for s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h is representa t ives . It is understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thes is fo r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my wr i t ten permiss ion. Department of The Un ivers i ty o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada FRASER VALLEY MILK PRODUCERS' ASSOCIATION SUCCESSFUL COOPERATIVE In 1913 t h i r t y dairy farmers formed the Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers A s s o c i a t i o n , an organiza t ion which began operat ion in 1917 and became one of the most successfu l cooperat ives in North America. The compact nature of the Fraser Va l ley was a geographic advantage which l a i d the basis for the success of the A s s o c i a t i o n . The r i v e r i t s e l f , the railway and the roads which were b u i l t slowly and at great c o s t , provided t ranspor ta t ion which u n i f i e d the V a l l e y . The i n s a t i a b l e Cariboo markets enabled pioneer farmers to become well e s t a b l i s h e d . The completion of the Canadian P a c i f i c Railway opened wider markets which dairymen were able to . take advantage of a f te r the creameries became e s t a b l i s h e d . The phenomenal growth of Vancouver in the f i r s t decade o f . t h e twentieth century provided a f l u i d market which was more l u c r a t i v e . . This market became a c c e s s i b l e to farmers as far away as the Ch i l l iwack Va l ley when the B .C . E l e c t r i c Railway l ine was completed in 19/10. Intense competi t ion on the f l u i d market and some of the p rac t ices of milk dealers forced the farmers to uni te in order to achieve order ly marketing. The t h i r t y men who i n i t i a t e d the organizat ion in 1913 were, on the whole, prosperous, ambitious men in the prime of l i f e , who bel ieved that the f e r t i l e land of the Fraser Va l ley could provide wealth jus t as the r i v e r had given- up gold to the f i r s t comers. Most of them had been engaged in farmers' assoc ia t ions or cooperat ive ventures and i t was on the s o l i d foundation of these groups that the i V -Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n began.- It was a merging of es tab l ished cooperat ives rather than a newly created o r g a n i z a t i o n . The A s s o c i a t i o n began operat ion during a period of war-time p r o s p e r i t y . Its outstanding i n i t i a l success convinced many in the Va l ley of the value of the Cooperat ive. This l a id the basis for the strong loya l ty of the membership which, along with f i rm and able l eadersh ip , contr ibuted to the success of the F .V .M .P .A . When order ly marketing could not be achieved through voluntary a c t i o n , the Cooperative members attempted to gain marketing l e g i s l a t i o n which would equal ize the returns from the f l u i d market. The Dairy Products Sales Adjustment Act was in e f f e c t throughout 1930. During th is time Cooperative members received better returns than p r e v i o u s l y . Th is strengthened the loya l ty of the membership as the s t ruggle to gain l e g i s l a t i o n cont inued. Geographic advantage, the high q u a l i t y of the leadership and the strong loya l ty of the membership help to expla in the success of the Cooperat ive , but the e f f e c t of that success is a lso worth c o n s i d e r a t i o n . The A s s o c i a t i o n con t ro l l ed production of the milk shipped by i ts members, preventing a surplus on the f l u i d market through the establ ishment of manufacturing p l a n t s . The many b i t t e r ba t t l es fought in the Va l ley were between the Cooperat ive, which struggled t o ' r e t a i n for i ts members the advantages of the s tab le market the i r j o i n t act ion had c rea ted , and those who sought to gain contro l of the f l u i d market, but who, in the name of f ree e n t e r p r i s e , refused to share the cost of s t a b i l i z i n g i t . The dramatic s t ruggle culminated with the passage of the Mi lk Industry Act in 1956, but the f a c t that the Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n had s u r v i v e d , prevented complete d i s r u p t i o n of the milk market through the long, d i f f i c u l t years and made the impact, of the V ; depress ion , severe though i t was, less d isastrous than i t might otherwise have been. Though i t ' p r o t e c t e d some.who were running' uneconomic farms, the Cooperative enabled many to adapt to the constant demands for s t e a d i l y increasing e f f i c i e n c y as a g r i c u l t u r e developed rap id ly from bush farming to a complex agro - indus t ry . The cooperat ive nature of the A s s o c i a t i o n and the s t ruc ture of the organiza t ion with i ts l o c a l s , and i ts centra l d i r e c t o r a t e e lected by the membership, gave a grass roo ts .con t ro l which involved every member in d e c i s i o n making (but did not prevent control over the membership by s k i l f u l leaders) and thus absorbed some of the unrest created by adverse economic condi t ions and prevented a l i e n a t i o n to a considerable extent . Many in the Va l ley had reason to be proud of the success of the Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n : many more to be gra te fu l fo r i t . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My spec ia l thanks to my family who suf fered without complaint , to Professor Robert Walton for suggesting that i t ' s never too late to l e a r n , to Professor Charles Humphries for making local h i story come a 1i ve to Professor Margaret Ormsby for her sound adv ice , for her w i l l i n g he lp , but most of a l1 for her l i v e l y i n t e r e s t , to Jim Vickers for the map, to Douglas MacPhail for copying and p r i n t i n g the photographs, to Ri ta Rosbergen for the typ ing , to a l1 the Va l ley people who were wi111ng to share thei r experiences or to make a v a i l a b l e m a t e r i a l s , but most of a l l to the members of the Cooperative to whom th is work is r e s p e c t f u l l y dedicated. vi i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . .. . . . . i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v i L I ST OF I LLUSTRATI ONS. . . . . . . . . v i i i INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter I . MARKETS FOR MILK 7 II. THE BIRTH OF THE ASSOCIATION 30 III. THE FARMERS IN BUSINESS • . 50 IV. COOPERATION . . . . . . . 62 V. COMPULSION 75 VI . CONTROL . . . • 110 VII. THE FRASER VALLEY MILK PRODUCERS' ASSOCIATION: SUCCESSFUL COOPERATIVE . . . 141 APPENDICES A. The F i r s t Farms . . 214 B. The F i r s t Charter . 219 C. The F i r s t Members 221 D. Background of the F i r s t Members . . . 1 . . ' 278 E. The Di rectors 279 F. The Presidents and General Managers. 280 BIBLIOGRAPHY 290 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Page Map . . . ix Crysta l Dairy Pamphlet. . . . . . . . . 120a E.D. Barrow • 281 John W. Berry. • . . . 282 Wi 11 iam J . Park . 283 The Mi lk Twins . . . ' . 284 Edenbank Creamery Company Limited . . . . . . . . . . 285 The Manufacturing Plants 286 The C i ty Plants 287 The Rigs . . . . . . . . • 288 The Trucks 289 X INTRODUCTION I High in the Rockies, t iny mountain creeks, born of melt ing snow and d r i z z l y r a i n , merge with the mi 1ky streams dr ipp ing o f f g l a c i e r s to form r ive rs which drop in a l l d i r e c t i o n s searching for the sea. One of these - r ivers , the Fraser , named a f te r the f i r s t white man to explore ., * ' i t , r ises in the central Rockies, and s l i p s northwest for nearly two hundred miles un t i l i t changes d i r e c t i o n , swinging in a wide a r c . Joined by the Nechako, which s p i l l s down from coast mountains to the west, and s i x t y miles l a t e r , by the Quesnel which r ises in the Cariboo Mountains to the eas t , the r i v e r flows south over plateau country forested with spruce and jack p ine . The current is s w i f t , but the r i ve r runs smoothly, muddying i t s e l f with s o i l cut from the defenseless banks. Ahead are the coast mountains, young, jagged giants which l i e p a r a l l e to the northwest coast . The cl imate becomes much d r i e r as the r i v e r moves into the rain shadow of the massive range. The spruce d isappear , the jack pine become scraggly and th in out , g iv ing way to grass and sage-brush and the country becomes more rugged as the mountains c lose i n , savagely pinching the muddy f low, or as a sharp drop in the plateau sends the water tumbling and b o i l i n g in fur ious rap ids . But there is s t i l l much open country. From the west flows the C h i l c o t i n , tw is t ing through the gently r o l l i n g h i l l s on i ts way to the main stream. For eighty or ninety miles the r i ve r t rave ls through open range land, part of an is land in a sea of mountains. It passes the Camelsfoot Range to the west and Fountain Ridge to . the eas t . But i t is not un t i l a f t e r the c l e a r waters of the Thompson are swallowed by the muddy Fraser that the souther ly path of the r i v e r is blocked by the massive b a r r i e r of coast mountains ly ing in a jumbled heap across i ts path. The r i v e r , r e l e n t l e s s , forces i ts way through the implacable rock, vengefu l ly cu t t ing a deep: canyon. The country is wi ld and f o r b i d d i n g . The pine appear aga in , t a l l e r and greener, but the mountains cast deep shadows and the sombre c o l o r s , gloomy in the r a i n , l ighten and fade, but do not soften in the harsh summer sun. The steep c l i f f s , the sound of the angry water, the gloom and the g l a r e , a l l accentuate the f i e r c e s t ruggle between the wounded rock and the turbu lent , imprisoned r i v e r . Eventual ly the Fraser breaks through i ts mountain b a r r i e r , swings west to f i n d - r e l e a s e in the coastal v a l l e y i t has formed, and empties into the S t r a i t of Georgia . The lower v a l l e y is lush and green, and in contrast to the wi ld canyon, almost gent le in appearance. Open to the west winds from the P a c i f i c , i t receives the heavy r a i n f a l l necessary to produce the dense jungle which covered the v a l l e y u n t i l the s e t t l e r and the logger c leared the th ick underbrush and f e l l e d the giant f i r and cedar. The country was bare of trees only where the Fraser , laying down mud in annual f l o o d i n g , or leaving i ts bed for anew course , had formed " p r a i r i e s , " or where the s lackening current had released s i l t to form d e l t a s . From Hope, where the r i ve r tu rns , to New Westminster near i ts mouth, th is lower v a l l e y of the Fraser s t re tches for over-eighty., mil es . For the f i r s t twenty- f ive of these, i t remains narrow and continues so along the north s ide of the r i v e r . Here, between the ridges of • 3 the Coast Mountains, long lakes - - Har r ison , Cheha1is , Stave, A l o u e t t e , P i t t and Coquitlam - - l i e roughly north and south. Fed by mountain streams, the i r waters s p i l l from southern t ips into r ivers which flow to the Fraser . These r i ve rs have.formed the i r own f lood p la ins and v a l l e y s , but they are short and. the mountains c l o s e . It is to the south of the Fraser that most of the f l a t land 1 ies. At the eastern end of the v a l l e y , Ch i l l iwack Lake l i e s south and s l i g h t l y west of Hope, i ts southern t ip very c lose to the f o r t y - n i n t h p a r a l l e l . From the northern end i t dra ins into the Ch i l l iwack R iver , which, jo ined by the Tamihi , t h e L i u m c h i n and numerous smaller creeks, flows s w i f t l y west to the Vedder Cross ing . When set t 1ers f i r s t a r r ived in the Chi11iwack-Sumas area , the r iver flowed northwest to j o i n the Fraser . In' 1874 i t began to change course. Three years l a t e r , Edgar Dewdney, examining the s i t u a t i o n , found the r i v e r "blocked for a d is tance of over ha l f a mi le with d r i f t t imber, packed t i g h t l y together , and bound with a deposit of gravel and sand, forming a c lose impenetrable dam."^ The r i v e r , denied i ts former o u t l e t , had found new ones. It had begun to flow through Vedder's Creek which c a r r i e d the great ly increased burden of water into Sumas Lake. It had widened A t c h e l i t z Creek, threatening the s e t t l e r s in that area with f l o o d i n g , and the Luk-a-Kuk had taken ha l f the water, changing from a small stream "which could be crossed at Mr. Wel ls ' house on a 30 foot pole to a r i v e r over 200 feet from bank to bank with a depth 2 of 18 to 20 f e e t . " Dewdney rea l i zed that i t .would be impossible to reopen the old channel and .considered that the Luk-a-Kuk,. being the most d i r e c t stream, should bear a l l the water of the'Chi 11iwack River . B i t t e r disputes over th is proposal arose between Sardis and A t c h e l i t z residents which were not resolved un t i l Sumas Lake was dra ined . This p r o j e c t , begun in 1920.and completed.three years l a t e r , added t h i r t y thousand acres of farm land to ' the V a l l e y — f e r t i l e , product ive land , bare of trees and f ree of s tones. Today the Vedder and the Sumas R iver , which a lso emptied into Sumas Lake, flow over the p r a i r i e land, guarded by dykes, _and j o i n , c lose to the i r common out le t to the Fraser . West of Sumas l i e s Matsqui P r a i r i e , and to the south , the h i l l y land around Abbotsford , where g l a c i a l t i l l has not been washed away or o v e r l a i d by r i v e r d e p o s i t s . West again is Langley P r a i r i e . Here the land is f l a t from the r i ve r to the border and beyond, much of i t heavi ly forested in i ts v i r g i n s t a t e . These p r a i r i e sect ions are an extension of the de l ta p la in which l i e s mainly, south of the f o r t y - n i n t h p a r a l l e l , between the Cascades and the sea , drained by the Nooksack R iver . Close to i t s mouth, the banks of the Fraser r i s e to f i v e or s i x hundred fee t . New Westminster was b u i l t on the north bank because the sharp r i s e provides a means of defense. The l e f t bank slopes south a f te r i t s sharp r i s e , drained by the Serpentine and far ther east by the Nicomekl River which flowed from Sumas Lake u n t i l i t was dra ined . Both fol low a slow, winding course through marshy, low- ly ing land in the i r lower reaches, and empty s l u g g i s h l y into Mud Bay, an ou t l e t which could qui te poss ib ly mark an e a r l i e r mouth of the Fraser . Beyond the r i v e r mouths is the f e r t i l e de l ta land - - several is lands of which Sea, Lulu and Westham are the la rgest — and the low- ly ing land between Boundary Bay and the south arm of the Fraser and Burrard In le t , an extension of the mainland which New Westminster was forced to share with Vancouver and Burnaby. For thousands of years Indians l ived in th is v a l l e y , bu i ld ing she l te rs of wood and bark c lose to the r i v e r which provided them with the i r food , and on which they t rave l l ed in t h e i r dugout canoes. The fu r - t raders were.the f i r s t white men to invade the i r t e r r i t o r y . In 1808 Simon Fraser , in the in terests of the North West Company, explored the Fraser , be l i ev ing i t to be the Columbia. His experiences in the rugged country south of Soda Creek discouraged use of the r i v e r below that po in t . It was not un t i l George Simpson, Governor of the Hudson's Bay Company, newly merged with the North-West f u r - t r a d e r s , began to reorganize the Western Department that a fo r t was es tab l ished in the lower Fraser V a l l e y . In 1824 James McMillan came north from Fort Vancouver on the Columbia. He led his expedit ion up the Nicomekl, portaged to the Salmon and followed i t to the Fraser . Near th is spot , three years l a t e r , Fort Langley was b u i l t , a beach-head in t e r r i t o r y which would sure ly remain B r i t i s h . Horses, c a t t l e and poul t ry were transported from the Hudson's Bay Company farms on the Columbia to the fo r t on Langley P r a i r i e and the f i r s t farming operat ions began in the Fraser V a l l e y . The s o i l was good c lay loam, and 1 i t t1e c l e a r i n g was required on the f lood p l a i n . By 1848, seventy or eighty cows were being mi lked, but the only farming in the Va l ley was confined to th is a rea , and was car r ied on by employees or former employees of the Hudson's Bay Company. Few other white men ventured into the trading company's preserve. The discovery of gold in 1858, however, brought thousands through the Val ley in the i r scramble for a spot on the sand bars . V i c t o r i a , Hope and Yale changed overnight from Hudson's Bay Company posts to booming towns, and B r i t i s h Columbia became a colony with a cap i ta l c i t y at New Westminster. The sand bars were staked out very rap id ly and the r i ve r was robbed of much of the gold i t c a r r i e d . Many disappointed gold seekers, too late to share the plunder, l e f t the country. Some in t rep id prospectors continued up r i v e r to s t r i k e gold in the Car iboo, but some of the newcomers took advantage of the land that was h a s t i l y made a v a i l a b l e . In 1861 the populat ion of the whole va l l ey to Yale was estimated at only 300,'' but wi th in e ight years i t had more than quadrup1ed^. and farming had become es tab l ished in the V a l l e y . MARKETS FOR MILK The f i r s t farming ventures in the Fraser Va l ley were concentrated mainly on the de l ta lands,^ where V i c t o r i a and New Westminster provided 2 markets a c c e s s i b l e by water, and in the Chi11iwack-Sumas V a l l e y , c l o s e r to the Yale market and the g o l d - f i e l d s beyond. Trees grew on the r ich de l ta s o i l , but on the f lood p la in in the Ch i l l iwack V a l l e y , the land required l i t t l e c l e a r i n g , and was covered with lush blue-green grass which could be cut for hay. In 1866 a reporter from the B r i t i s h 3 Columbian v i s i t e d the area and made an u n o f f i c i a 1 census. He found f i f t e e n farms in operat ion and an amazing wealth on some of the farms so recent ly e s t a b l i s h e d . The s e t t l e r s were producing bu t te r , eggs, beef , pork and vegetables for the Cariboo market and feed c rops , not only for the i r da i ry c a t t l e which could be pastured most of the year , but a lso for the oxen used in the car ry ing t rade. Though much experimentation would la ter be done with f r u i t and grain crops , the high production of but ter , and the fact that those who were farming on a f u l l - t i m e basis were engaged in d a i r y i n g , indicates that th is type of farming had become estab l ished very ear ly in the Fraser V a l l e y . The remarkable harvest which was recorded by the New Westminster-j o u r n a l i s t could only have been made poss ib le by the Indian who was, according to Charles Evans, "the p ioneer 's 1 i ve capi t a i E v a n s , deplor ing the degradation of the nat ives in 1904, r eca l l ed that "the 8 sturdy l i t t l e Indian of 25 years ago" had done farm work, constructed bu i ld ings and transported goods and people by ;eanoe. It is a well known fact that many of the s e t t l e r s had Indian wives, who must sure ly have been of considerable he lp . A few of the marriages were permanent, but usual ly Indian g i r l s were cast as i-de when white women came west or when s e t t l e r s were well enough es tab l ished to return to Ontar io for wi ves. On the gold f r o n t i e r , farming ventures and gold mining a c t i v i t y were c l o s e l y r e l a t e d , for both farmer and prospector , of ten the same person, explo i ted the wealth of the colony. It was the abundance of gold which provided cap i ta l to be invested in c a t t l e brought in from Oregon, and which made poss ib le quick returns and huge p r o f i t s . The s e t t l e r s who found cheap land, cheap labor , large local markets, and access to them by water and over the h a s t i l y constructed Cariboo Road, were pioneer ing on a farm f r o n t i e r made d i f f e r e n t from the usual by the quick re turns, the enormous p r o f i t s and the local markets to be found on a gold f r o n t i e r . Though many who pre-empted land acquired i t for e x p l o i t i v e and specu la t ive purposes, some of the prospectors were farm boys whose knowledge enabled them, not only to make the best use of the unique o p p o r t u n i t i e s , but a lso to improve the i r farming methods as rap id ly as p o s s i b l e , 7 and to make the t r a n s i t i o n to the more advanced methods of farming which were transforming the da i ry ing industry during the las t g hal f of the nineteenth century. The wealth accumulated by these men, much of i t based on the value of the i r large land ho ld ings , l a id the basis for the expectat ion of prosper i ty which has constant ly dominated the thinking of Va l ley farmers. The lush and f r i e n d l y Va l ley had v ic ious aspects , however, not a l l immediately apparent. Mosquitoes were a scourge as the waters receded every summer. The heavy ra in fa 11 , which made the country so green, came mainly in the winter months. The summers could be hot and d r y , scorching the crops on which the farmers pinned the i r hopes. The m i l d rainy winters were ideal for producing the pasture and feed c rops , but ear ly s e t t l e r s soon learned that when the west wind dumping rain from the P a c i f i c reversed d i r e c t i o n , the east wind funne l l ing through the mountains brought A r c t i c a i r which whist led over the open p r a i r i e with a f e r o c i t y which only people who have l ived in the Va l ley can apprec ia te . The modern farmers with the i r tank trucks and heavy snow ploughs are vulnerable when the east wind blows. It is not d i f f i c u l t to imagine what the pioneers must have endured when the r i v e r f roze over . Snow melting on the magnif icent mountains caused the r i v e r to f lood every s p r i n g . If spr ing were late and. a sudden heat wave in June released the snow too suddenly or i f the local thaw coincided with thawing in the i n t e r i o r and in the Rockies, the annual spr ing f lood would become, not merely a danger and a threat , but a d i s a s t e r . Such a d i s a s t e r occurred in o 9 when f lood waters destroyed dykes at H a t z i c , Matsqui and Langley, and even the newly constructed Maple Ridge dyke, b u i l t to an average height of k feet 9 i n c h e s , ^ f a i l e d to shut out the water. Poorly drained s o i l was a problem in most parts of the V a l l e y . Horses had to be shod to keep them from s i n k i n g , even on the A . C . Wells farm, one of the highest pieces of land on the Val ley f l o o r . ^ Poor drainage on the de l ta meant that excessive s a l t and soggy ground made production of good crops d i f f i c u l t . John O l i v e r was one of the f i r s t 12 to use a system of underdraining to combat th is problem. The problems of dyking and dra in ing were matched only by the enormous d i f f i c u l t i e s of c l e a r i n g the heavi ly forested uplands. S e t t l e r s a r r i v i n g in the l870's found the p r a i r i e and de l ta lands taken U P and c u l t i v a t e d land c o s t l y . Forced to choose between low- ly ing land subject to annual f looding and uncleared upland, they chose to f igh t the fores t rather than the r i v e r . Land speculat ion and the high cost of c lea r ing continued to hinder agr icu1ture for years . The drainage problems and the d i f f i c u l t i e s of c l e a r i n g . 1 and showed road bu i ld ing and contr ibuted to the lone l iness and sense of i s o l a t i o n suf fered by the p ioneers . Steam-boats provided t ranspor ta t ion on the Fraser and farms bordering the r i ve r had d a i l y contact with New West-minster , but f o r ' t h o s e 1iving away from the' r i v e r communication was 13 very d i f f i c u l t . Roads were non-existent or very poor, of ten mere t r a i l s cut by the s e t t l e r s themselves. Though the completion of the road from New Westminster to Yale in 1875 provided an a l t e r n a t i v e to the water route and enabled farmers on the Sumas P r a i r i e and Yn Ch i l l iwack to send produce to Yale more e a s i l y , i t was not un t i l 1897~1898 that i t was grave l led and "put into passable c o n d i t i o n . " Unt i l Sumas Lake was dra ined , t r a v e l l e r s followed a hazardous road which wound around the s ide of Vedder Mountain. These were problems which could best be defeated by increased immigration, and in sp i te of the d i f f i c u l t i e s , s e t t l e r s clung to the be l ie f , that the a g r i c u l t u r a l potent ia l of the Val ley was very great . Only gradual ly did they r e a l i z e that the " p r a i r i e hay" which provided i f not g o l d , at least s i l v e r , lacked the n u t r i t i o n to ensure a high production of mi lk , and local gra in crops could rare ly compete in q u a l i t y with imported feed . S c i e n t i f i c s o i l ana lys is revealed that hone of the land which : appeared so f e r t i l e - t o the ear ly s e t t l e r s was f i r s t c l a s s , and even the good areas would need c a r e f u l management. In s p i t e of • 16 the devastat ion caused by the . f lood of 1894J a s u r p r i s i n g r e s i l i e n c y was evident in the determined e f f o r t s to discount reports of the damage. A successfu l municipal dyking scheme was s tar ted in Delta in 1895, but i t was 1903 before dyking was completed in Chi 11iwack, . 1908 in P i t t 18 Meadows, and the dra in ing of Sumas Lake was not completed u n t i l 1923-19 Undoubtedly the problems enhanced the myth. Farmers who had invested heavi ly in money for c u l t i v a t e d land or in labor - - often a l i f e time of heavy t o i l - - w e r e re luctant to r e l i n q u i s h the i r dream, and strove to overcome the problems in order to make i t come t rue . Because the f r o n t i e r period was almost non-existent in B r i t i s h Columbia, the enormous geographical problems were overcome more qu ick ly or to le ra ted more e a s i l y than they would have been i f populat ion growth had been slow. By 1870 shr ink ing markets in the Cariboo and increased competit ion forced down pr ices and cut into p r o f i t s , but the.growth of New Westminster, and the logging camps and sawmills which sprang up continued to provide markets. Enough people were interested in farming to.promote a meeting for the purpose.of organiz ing an A g r i c u l t u r a l 20 Society in New Westminster as ear ly as 1867- It was planned that branch committees should be set up in Richmond, Langley, Sumas, Ch i l l iwack and Burrard In let . In 1873 the Ch i l l iwack soc ie ty organized 21 and sponsored the f i r s t local e x h i b i t i o n , held the next year . The decade of the 70 's was a per iod o f . s t a g n a t i o n in the V a l l e y , but depressed condi t ions ex is ted in other parts of Canada and of the wor ld . In s p i t e of the problems of the p ioneers , populat ion growth 22 was steady, r i s i n g from 1356 in 1869 to 7,000 by 1881 - Throughout the Va l ley the huge f i r and cedar which stood in the way of settlement were being a t tacked. Logging was the main a c t i v i t y in many areas , but the c u l t i v a t i o n of the land went on q u i e t l y and s t e a d i l y . Men l i k e 23 2k A . C . Wells in S a r d i s , and the Shannon brothers in Clover Va l ley were e s t a b l i s h i n g themselves on farms which would become wi th in two decades showplaces of the Va l ley and centres for progressive farming. 25 There were those who were d iscouraged, but the markets of the Gold Rush period remained a l i v e l y memory, and there was throughout the Va l ley a pers is ten t b e l i e f that new and greater oppor tuni t ies lay ahead. The guarantee of a r a i l r o a d l ink ing the P a c i f i c coast to Canada as a cond i t ion of B r i t i s h Columbia's entry into Confederation promised rea1 i za t ion of that hope. The completion of the Canadian P a c i f i c Railway in 1885 st imulated the economy and revived dreams. Construct ion camps provided markets for food and the need for railway t ies increased the local market for lumber. Money which had been scarce began t o c i rcu;l.ate more f r e e l y and the r a i l -road f a c i l i t a t e d the immigration so badly needed in the V a l l e y . . A s p i r i t of buoyant optimism preva i led which was r e f l e c t e d in the pages of the Ch i l l iwack Progress. "Never in the h is to ry o f . t h e Province has 26 there been such a c t i v i t y in the t ransfer and.sett lement of l a n d s , " declared the e d i t o r in the f i r s t i ssue , pub 1ished in 1891. In four years Ch i l l iwack swelled from a centre wjth f i v e places of business to 27 * . 2g One with f i f t y - t w o . Six schools opened in Surrey in 1891, and though the census f igures which appeared that year showed a d i s -appoint ing ly small increase for the whole of Canada, the populat ion of the New Westminster e l e c t o r a l d i s t r i c t rose from 7,000 in 1881 to 17,866 in 1891. 2 9 The d is tant markets which the r a i l r o a d made a c c e s s i b l e would have been of l i t t l e advantage to the Fraser Va l ley milk producers i f i t had not been for several inventions which revo lu t ion ized the da i ry indust ry . The use of the cen t r i fuga l cream separator made creamery butter a more p r o f i t a b l e product than cheese. Both cheese f a c t o r i e s and creameries re l ieved the farmer of time-consuming and demanding chores and thus allowed him to increase the s i z e of his herd. The use of the Babcock test to determine the fat content of milk made herd improvement eas ie r to ach ieve . The improvement of co ld storage and r e f r i g e r a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s widened the markets a v a i l a b l e to da i ry farmers. Creameries became the key to the s o l u t i o n of production problems a s o l u t i o n which lent i t s e l f to cooperat ive a c t i o n . Cooperative da i ry ing has been traced back to the 11th or 12th century when farmers in the Alps borrowed milk from each other on a rota t ing system so that each would have a quant i ty s u f f i c i e n t for cheesemaking. This p r a c t i c e led to the establishment of a centra l cheesemaking b u i l d i n g where farmers sent milk every day and rotated the task of making the cheese. This type of lending is known to have been done in New England about 31 1835, and by the middle of the century the f i r s t cheese f a c t o r i e s in North America were in opera t ion , one in Wisconsin and one in New York. A nat ive of New York was responsib le for e rec t ing the f i r s t cheese 33 factory in Canada in Oxford County, Ontar io in 1864, and the spread of s i m i l a r f a c t o r i e s was very r a p i d . Many of these f a c t o r i e s were es tab l ished on a semi-cooperat ive b a s i s , but the bas ic p r i n c i p l e s of cooperat ion worked out by the Rochdale pioneers were not yet genera l ly understood. It was in Rochdale, England that .one of the f i r s t successfu l modern cooperat ives began. The t e x t i l e industry was the f i r s t to undergo enormous changes as a resu l t of the use of steam power and the i n d u s t r i a l workers in the t e x t i l e m i l l s were the f i r s t to cooperate to f ree them-selves from e x p l o i t a t i o n by shop-keepers. Consumer coopera t ives , a f te r many abor t ive s t a r t s , took root-and f l o u r i s h e d . The Rochdale pioneers enunciated the basic p r i n c i p l e s that membership.be vo luntary , that the value of shares be wi th in the means of would-be members, that contro l be democratic with the al lotment of one vote to one man regardless of shares h e l d , that serv ices be provided .at cost and p r o f i t s returned to 34 members on a patronage b a s i s . The success of cooperat ives in B r i t a i n as.economic i n s t i t u t i o n s of s e l f - h e l p among indus t r i a l workers.provided a model . for other d i s -advantaged groups. Farmers in Europe, threatened not only by i n d u s t r i -al i z a t i o n , . but a lso by increased competit ion from North American producers, turned to cooperat ion for the purpose.of obta in ing s u p p l i e s , improving production and marketing surplus products. A g r i c u l t u r a l cooperat ion was p a r t i c u l a r l y successfu l in Denmark, a country in which farming was the main occupat ion. Danish farmers faced .ser ious problems a f te r the loss of Schleswig and Ho ls te in to Prussia in 1864. Farm income was low because the land was impoverished .as a . r e s u l t of excessive cropping. World pr ices fo r c a t t l e and wheat, Denmark's s tap le expor ts , were d e c l i n i n g because of increased competit ion from North America. " Cooperatives formed qu ick ly in a country where peasant v i l l a g e s , which retained a her i tage of informal cooperat ion from the manorial economy, made regional organiza t ion almost an i n s t i n c t . A high standard of rural education and ownership of the land by those who farmed i t a lso expla in the a b i l i t y of the Danish farmers to improve the i r economic p o s i t i o n by moving into more p r o f i t a b l e branches of a g r i c u l t u r e . Cheese f a c t o r i e s , creameries, bacon-curing plants and egg grading and packing plants became estab l ished on the cooperat ive p r i n c i p l e . Danish coopera t ives , p a r t i c u l a r l y the creameries, served as models for farmers a l l over the wor ld . The idea was taken up by the Patrons of Industry, a farm movement which spread from the United States to Canada in the 1890 's, but Canadian dairymen were a lso d i r e c t l y a f fected by the success of Danish cooperat ives — the Ontario govern-3 t> ment sent an expert to study Danish methods in 1879. In 1888 the Dairymen's A s s o c i a t i o n of Canada formed and requested that a Dairy commissioner be appointed by the dominion government. Professor J.W. Robertson accepted the p o s i t i o n iii 1891 . He not only created great in terest in improving da i ry product ion , but a lso s t rongly advocated the establ ishment of cooperat ive cheese f a c t o r i e s and creamer ies. From i ts beginning as a crown colony, B r i t i s h Columbia had never produced enough food to support i ts popu la t ion . - For many years , un t i l 36 1910, the value of imports a c t u a l l y exceeded.that of home product ion . The p r o v i n c i a l government es tab l ished a Department of A g r i c u l t u r e in 1892 for the purpose of a s s i s t i n g farmers to increase food production 37 and improve q u a l i t y of produce. An act for the regulat ion of th is department was passed in 1894, and a se r ies of acts designed to improve and encourage da i ry ing were passed wi th in the n e x t . t w o o r three 39 years . The Dairymen's A s s o c i a t i o n A c t , .1895 provided for the incorporat ion of companies for the manufacture of butter and cheese. The Mi lk Fraud A c t , 1895 empowered managers of f a c t o r i e s to test samples of milk from patrons and to inspect t h e i r premises. The Creameries A c t , 1896 made p rov is ion for loans not exceeding $2000 to companies or assoc ia t ions incorporated for the "purpose of e r e c t i n g , acqu i r ing and mainta in ing , managing and operat ing a creamery upon the c o -operat ive s y s t e m . " ^ This body of l e g i s l a t i o n and the a c t i v i t i e s of dominion government a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s ushered in the creamery period in the Fraser V a l l e y . hi Though a p r iva te creamery began operat ion in New Westminster, many lower Va l ley farmers, informed about. the advantages of cooperat ive 43 d a i r y i n g , organized the Delta Creamery in 1895- Within four months, $3000 had been subscr ibed , the bu i ld ing constructed and A . A . King kk brought from the east to manage the opera t ion . Surrey farmers who were wooed by advocates of the Westminster Creamery decided that they 45 preferred to have creameries located in the country. They met with delegates from the Delta Creamery, 1istened to a deputy sent by Professor Robertson, dominion Dairy Commissioner, and made plans to j o i n the coopera t ive . In 1895 Edenbank Creamery, S a r d i s , incorporated under the Creameries Act with f i v e patrons. It was p r i v a t e l y owned by A . C . Wells who had been making butter and cheese on his farm. for many years , but i t was run l i k e a coopera t ive . Wells took.mi lk or cream from his patrons and made i t up with his own at cos t . . .Each patron.was paid once a month at the rate of but ter fa t suppl ied less making charges. Other expenses in terest on c a p i t a l , insurance, wear and tear on machinery - - • were taken out of s u r p l u s . Annual meetings of the patrons received accounts of the company, and p r o f i t s were d iv ided according to the amount of 2*7 but ter fa t sent in by each member. The second annual meeting of the B r i t i s h Columbia Dairymen's A s s o c i a t i o n was held in Ch i l l iwack in 1896. A.1A. K ing , manager of the Delta Creamery, spoke on the s u b j e c t o f creameries, point ing out that they enabled the farmer to surv ive in an increas ing ly competi t ive 48 economy. Within two weeks a meeting took.p lace fo r the.purpose of 49 organiz ing another cooperat ive . The Ch i l l iwack Creamery Company was incorporated, but there was not s u f f i c i e n t support for i t to go into o p e r a t i o n . I n the meantime, a pr iva te creamery began business in Vancouver. It was s i x years before the Ch i l l iwack Creamery became organized. In s p i t e of increased compet i t ion , not only l o c a l l y , b u t . a l s o from government subsid ized creameries in the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s and Manitoba, Fraser Va l ley output of milk products increased s t e a d i l y . Edenbank reduced the cost of manufacturing from 3< per pound to an average of and increased the number of i t s patrons to 72 by 52 1901. The Delta Cooperative declared a dividend of 10% for the year 53 1901. It was qui te evident that there was room for both the New Westminster and the Delta Creamery as well as for a pr iva te one s tar ted 54 at Upper Sumas and for a.condensary at M i s s i o n . Populat ion growth in the lower mainland provided rap id ly expanding local markets, and markets were a l s o opening in the Klondyke and A t l i n reg ions , in the Kootenays and even in the Or ien t . The manager of the Western Condensed Milk Canning, Coffee and Creamery .Company at Mission.complained that the biggest problem of the operation.was to obtain a large enough supply of m i lk . The company had star ted i ts own herd, but required 20 tons of milk per day to operate at f u l l c a p a c i t y . The propr ie tors 55 were conf ident of good markets. It was under such favorable condi t ions that the Ch i l l iwack Creamery f i n a l l y began product ion . Among the trustees were E.D. Barrow, J . S . Mercer and T . R . Whi t ley , manager of the Royal Bank in C h i l l i w a c k , 56 who became the f i r s t president of the cooperat ive . Attempts had been made to amalgamate with E d e n b a n k , b u t A . C . Wells was convinced that one creamery should serve the d i s t r i c t in order to reduce toperating expenses. The Edenbank trade mark had become so well known that Wells had no intent ion of g iv ing i t up.' The Creamery had agreed to bonus patrons outs ide a s i x - m i l e l im i t to the extent of per pound but te r fa t to compensate for hau l ing . The Ch i l l iwack Creamery began in s p i t e of these e f f o r t s to thwart i t . Its promoters were a lso convinced that one creamery should serve the whole a rea , but that i t should be es tab l ished in Ch i l l iwack which would give i t the advantage of a centra l l o c a t i o n . Although Edenbank continued to increase i ts product ion , wi th in the f i r s t year of operat ion the output of the new creamery exceeded that of Sardis and a r i v a l r y developed between the 59 two. Dairy farmers who shipped to the creameries prospered because the improved q u a l i t y of butter ensured steady pr ices and the farmers' a b i l i t y to increase production brought larger re turns. The success of the cooperat ive creameries provided the educat ion , the p r a c t i c a l exper ience, the sense of c lass consciousness among the farmers which l a i d one of the very important bases for ' the emergence and success of the Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n . i i i The Canadian P a c i f i c Railway,--a band of s tee l f lung across a continent to grapple a nation together , had a.profound e f f e c t on the various parts of the empire i t c reated . It peopled the p r a i r i e s of the Canadian Northwest, but was unable to cope adequately with the huge flow of wheat which the immigrants there produced for world markets. The tensions created led to demands on the part of the wheat farmers for l e g i s l a t i o n , and the determination that the l e g i s l a t i o n be j u s t l y and equi tably enforced led to the formation of the T e r r i t o r i a l Grain Growers' A s s o c i a t i o n in 1901, the Manitoba Grain Growers' A s s o c i a t i o n in 1903 and the' United Farmers of A lber ta in 1906.. These farmers' movements organized the wheat-producers and created a body of informed, involved members, cap'ab 1 e .o f cooperat i ng to market the i r own grain and bu i ld the i r own e l e v a t o r s . Though, several types of 60 organ iza t ion developed.on the p r a i r i e s , they represented "one 61 continuous and indigenous Grain Growers' movement," un l ike farmers' movements on the great p la ins in the United States which spread from various centres and lacked cohesiveness. The Canadian P a c i f i c Railway was undoubtedly a fac tor in expla in ing the Canadian phenomenon. It was the rai1 road, too, .which 'iricreased populat ion and opened markets on the p r a i r i e s to the f ru i t -growers of the Okanagan V a l l e y . Like the wheat-producers they had a large surplus of a commodity which required accessvto d is tan t .markets. In add i t ion they had the problem o f .hand l ing a h igh ly per ishable product . -The r a i l r o a d was a f o r e -runner of the per iod of rapid i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n which began in the 1890 1s in Canada. Farmers were forced to produce with increasing e f f i c i e n c y in order to maintain the i r place in s o c i e t y . Though a l l farmers were concerned with improving methods o f .product ion and farm techniques, fo r the wheat-producers and the f r u i t - g r o w e r s , the over r id ing cons idera t ion was that of marketing the product e f f i c i e n t l y and e l iminat ing the middle man in o r d e r ' t o o b t a i n t h e maximum p r o f i t for the producer. In response to th is pressing need came the impetus to cooperate. As in other areas of Canada, the r a i l r o a d brought s e t t l e r s to the Fraser Ma\1ey and provided access to wider markets, but i t was not a band of s tee l passing through.- The grappl ing iron was hooked to the shore of Burrard In le t , and i t was the phenomenal growth of the c i t y which sprang up.as a terminus to the r a i l r o a d that a f fec ted the farmer most. From a small townsite and a sawmill in 1881, Vancouver grew to a port c i t y of 13,709 by 18-91; 29,432 by 1901 and 120,847 by 1911".62 New Westminster fought to re ta in contro l .o f . the Va l ley as i t s c i t i z e n s watched "the octopus" dwarf the importance of the "Royal C i t y , " b u t i t shared in the growth of the whole a rea . The c o a s t . c i t i e s provided rap id ly expanding markets for f resh milk which brought the best p r i c e for the producer. The condensar ies , which produced a less per ishable product and returned a better p r i c e than but te r , played the i r part in d i s p l a c i n g the creamer ies , but the extension of t ranspor ta t ion f a c i l i t i e s which made the c i t y markets a c c e s s i b l e to var ious parts of the Va l ley was a more important fac tor in phasing out the creamery p e r i o d . The completion of the Canadian P a c i f i c Railway made i t poss ib le fo r farmers who began da i ry ing on' the north bank of the Fraser to ship fresh milk to Vancouver at an ear ly date. There were problems, however.- Tra ins which had crossed a continent before reaching the Va l ley were f requent ly l a t e . Farmers had to d e l i v e r the i r milk to the s ta t ion and were expected to load i t themselves. This could often mean long waits and time wasted which could be more p r o f i t a b l y spent on the farm. In 1907 F.M. Logan, Commissioner of D a i r y i n g , succeeded in arranging for a local t r a in to run between Agassiz and V a n c o u v e r . ^ The completion of the combined r a i l and t r a f f i c bridge across the Fraser at New Westminster in 1904 and the entry of the Great Northern l ine to Vancouver in 1907 opened the c i t y markets to farmers in parts of Surrey. The Surrey Cooperative Creamery began producing butter in 1904 when the New Westminster market became eas ie r to reach and closed in 1907 when the Vancouver f l u i d market became a c c e s s i b l e . The completion of the Vancouver and Lulu Island Railway in 1905 opened the same market to farmers in De l ta . Many members deserted the Delta Creamery which paid 23<£ to 30£ per pound but te r fa t for the f l u i d market where pr ices ranged from 40< to 55t P e r pound. The Creamery continued a s t e a d i l y decreasing output of butter un t i l i t was replaced by the Paci f i c Milk p l a n t . The B r i t i s h Columbia E l e c t r i c Railway Company operated an interurban tram l ine between Vancouver and New Westminster from the time of i ts incorporat ion in 1897- About a decade . la te r the company began to make extensive addi t ions to i ts e l e c t r i c railway system. The Lulu Island Railway l i n k i n g Steveston to Vancouver and Eburne to New Westminster was operated under lease from the Canadian P a c i f i c Railway. A new branch was extended to Burnaby in 1911 and the Fraser Val ley l i n e , "the longest and most c o s t l y s i n g l e tramline in the Dominion," was completed to Ch i l l iwack in October, 1910. As the milk flow to Vancouver increased so did the number of r e t a i l d a i r i e s . In 1905 there were s i x , a l l p r i v a t e l y operated. By 1910 65 th is number had increased to twenty and by 1915 to twenty-eight . In . s p i t e of the increased p r i c e farmers received from the d e a l e r s , they were not s a t i s f i e d with the new market for they soon came to feel they were at the mercy of the c i t y dea le r . There are s t i l l farmers in the Va l ley who remember the grievances of th is pe r iod . They reca l l that they put the i r milk on the t ra in and hoped for the best . Often the i r cans would not be returned. The dealers were f requent ly blamed, but the r a i l r o a d was jus t as often respons ib le . When cows were m i l k i n g , the supply had to be handled d a i l y . To be deprived of cans was more than a gr ievance; i t was a real hardship . Payment was rare ly prompt. When the farmer did receive his re turns , he f requent ly found that he had been cred i ted with sour milk - - often one or two cans each day. It was d i f f i c u l t to be l ieve that part of the shipment could have soured on the way to Vancouver. He was convinced 66 that th is was another way in which the dealer cheated him. Dealers f requent ly cut farmers o f f with l i t t l e not ice and some farmers be l ieved 67 that they were " b l a c k b a l l e d . " Sometimes the dealer would c lose down 68 his business suddenly or go into bankruptcy. The farmer who sustained heavy losses rare ly f e l t any sympathy for the middle man. Undoubtedly the complaints were many. In 1909 farmers were demanding a system of bi-monthly sett lements "owing to large losses in the past by the 69 f a i l u r e of a number of r e t a i l e r s in Vancouver." But the dealers had problems too. Some farmers engaged in winter d a i r y i n g , but feed costs were so high that the majori ty fol lowed the prac t ice of having t h e i r cows freshen in spr ing to take advantage of summer pastures . Thus there was f requent ly a shortage of milk during the winter which of ten l e f t the d a i r i e s in the embarrassing p o s i t i o n of being unable to s a t i s f y a l l t he i r customers. In the " f l u s h " season there was more than enough to f i l l the requirements of the f l u i d market. To the annoyance and f r u s t r a t i o n of the farmer, the p r ice would drop, usual ly with l i t t l e n o t i c e . There was.concern in the c i t i e s about the q u a l i t y of the milk supply. Vancouver and New Westminster newspapers gave considerable p u b l i c i t y to complaints of uncleanl iness and a d u l t e r a t i o n . Attempts on the part of medical health o f f i c e r s to control the s i t u a t i o n led to fur ther f r i c t i o n between dealers and''producers as each blamed the other for the add i t ion of water and preservat ives to the m i l k . 7 ^ It proved impossible for anxious o f f i c i a l s to prosecute under p rov inc ia l law because adu l te ra t ion of f o o d , . a matter of cr imina l law, was wi th in the exc lus ive j u r i s d i c t i o n of the dominion par l iament . 7 ^ Having f a i l e d to control the milk supply through the c o u r t s , the medical o f f i c e r s succeeded in having a .mi lk commission appointed in Vancouver in 1909. It was made up of medical men.who worked with the vendors and dai ry 72 p r o p r i e t o r s . Members of the commission inspected the premises of the dairymen, examined the milk and graded i t . Mi 1k producers meeting an acceptable standard were allowed to use the name of the Vancouver Medical 73 Assoc ia t ion on cans and b o t t l e s . As a resu l t of an inves t iga t ion of the milk supply by a royal commission, a Milk Act was passed in 1913, enabl ing the counci l of every munic ipa l i ty to pass bylaws fo r the Ik regulat ion of milk produced and so ld wi thin i ts bounds. Two farmers' organizat ions formed in response to the complexi t ies and problems of the f l u i d milk market. These assoc ia t ions became, along with the Ch i l l iwack Creamery, important bases for the emergence of the Fraser Va l ley Milk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n . In 1904 the Richmond Dairymen's Assoc ia t ion formed 7 ^ with a head o f f i c e at 228 Abbott S t r e e t , Vancouver. This was a wholesale ou t l e t for the farmers' produce, and an attempt on the part of some of the lower va l l ey farmers to strengthen the i r p o s i t i o n with the dealers through united a c t i o n . There were several managers in the f i r s t seven y e a r s , , but from 1911 u n t i l 1917 E .G . Sherwood served in that p o s i t i o n . Many of the farmers appear to have been w i l l i n g to conform to more r i g i d q u a l i t y standards i f dealers were a l s o forced to meet them. Many, who wished to ship milk c o n s i s t e n t l y throughout the year , found i t impossible to susta in the high cost of winter da i ry ing unless they could be assured a good pr ice throughout the year . In September, 1909. a group of da i ry farmers, organized as the Lower Mainland Milk and Cream Shippers ' A s s o c i a t i o n , forced the p r ice of milk from 20<j to 22ie 76 per gaj lon for milk and from $1.10 to $1.30 per gal Ion for cream. The p o s i t i o n of th is organizat ion was weakened, however, when the B r i t i s h Columbia E l e c t r i c Railway completed i ts l ine to Ch i l l iwack in O c t o b e r , . 1910, adding the r ich Chi l l iwack d i s t r i c t to the Vancouver "milk s h e d . " For years Ch i l l iwack had 1ooked forward to .a r a i l r o a d connection with the coast . The townspeople had waited for a Canadian P a c i f i c Railway branch l ine which did not m a t e r i a l i z e . They had expected the Coast-Kootenay Rai l road to open the Va l ley to Vancouver, only to be d i s -appointed. At last the r a i l l ink with the coast was made, br ing ing enormous changes. The B r i t i s h Columbia Mi lk Condensing Company, :with i ts head-quarters at New Westminster, b u i l t a plant on the l i n e of the B^C. E l e c t r i c Railway in Sumas in 1911,'77 a year a f t e r the Sardis Creamery c l o s e d . Increased competit ion from imports kept butter pr ices low and condensed milk proved to be a more p r o f i t a b l e dairy product. The dec l ine of the creamery per iod had begun in the upper v a l l e y with a pr iva te plant being the f i r s t to c l o s e . Edenbank Creamery patrons decided to take advantage of the c i t y market. Arrangements were made to have a branch opened in the Vancouver 78 market which would provide an ou t le t for var ious products . A pasteur izer and a modern cold storage plant were i n s t a l l e d , and.a new dai 79 and milk house b u i l t . As an inducement to come through S a r d i s , the Creamery contr ibuted s i x acres of land to the B .C. E l e c t r i c Railway Company for a r ight -of -way and made a pub l i c s u b s c r i p t i o n of $600 towards the p ro jec t . A s ta t ion was b u i l t and a spur l ine was l a i d immediately behind the Creamery. The Ch i l l iwack Creamery A s s o c i a t i o n had b u i l t a new and modern plant in 1908 with an improved water supply. In the spr ing of 1910, f i f t y or s ix ty share-holders of the Cooperative met to consider what ac t ion would be of advantage to them as a resu l t of the an t ic ipa ted access to the c i t y . The question of amalgamation.with Richmond Dairy was d i s -cussed. E.D. Barrow, president of the Creamery, pointed out that th is would strengthen the dairymen's hand and indicated that the Richmond A s s o c i a t i o n looked with favor on such a scheme. But the farmers were not ready for any such commitment. They decided to s e l l as much milk as poss ib le on the f l u i d market in the hope that th is would create a 81 greater demand for butter and so increase the p r i c e . Later that year a contract was signed with the C i ty Dairy Company of Vancouver for 50$ per pound but ter fa t as compared with 22<j to 32<J which members 82 had prev iously received from butter and ice-cream re turns . The Vancouver Creamery sent W.K. McLeod to the Ch i l l iwack Va l ley to . go e s t a b l i s h a depot. Within a year he had accepted a p o s i t i o n as 84 manager of the Ch i l l iwack Creamery. It would appear that the patrons had f i rm control of the i r production which they had no intent ion of r e l i n q u i s h i n g . For them the future looked b r i g h t . But the competit ion of Ch i l l iwack milk was a threat to farmers in the lower v a l l e y . As a resu l t of the expansion of o u t l e t s , land values in the Va l ley rose sharp ly . Real estate a d v e r t i s i n g promised great o p p o r t u n i t i e s . The l i t e r a t u r e was far from f a l s e . The success of the two creameries was a well es tab l ished fac t and there were a number of farmers who were Or w i l l i n g to t e s t i f y to the oppor tun i t ies they had found. Vancouver's rapid growth promised to continue as the Panama Canal neared complet ion. This prospect was an important cons i deration', for some ind iv idua ls 86 making an investment in Fraser Va l ley land. IV The whole va l l ey s t i l l needed more s e t t l e r s to open up the un-occupied lands. People a t t rac ted to . the area as th is boom period cont inued, however, found uncleared lands in the hands of s p e c u l a t o r s . Low assessment rates on wi ld lands had kept taxat ion low, .enabl ing those who held them to wait f o r ' h i g h e r p r i c e s . Land specula t ion had been a problem s ince the days of the gold rush but in th is h e c t i c p e r i o d , rea1 estate . agents increased .in-number and the cost of land rose in some cases as much as h00% in two years . The in f lux of populat ion brought increased demands fo r serv ices which would ra ise taxat ion ra tes . A Royal Commission appointed. to invest igate taxat ion reported that i t found "abundant proof of rap id ly .advancing prosper i ty s ide 88 by s ide with a strong s p i r i t of optimism on the part of the peop le . " The commissioners came to the conclusion that "complaints were 89 regarding the method rather than the amount of t a x a t i o n . " ^ The cost of c l e a r i n g land was p r o h i b i t i v e , often reaching more than $200 per acre . Farmers' Inst i tutes provided some r e l i e f by buying stumping powder in large quant i t i es which made i t poss ib le to supply members at minimum c o s t . But wages were high and labor , a t t rac ted o f f the farms to the exploding c i t i e s where pub l i c works provided 90 better paying j o b s , was scarce . There were many problems in th is turbulent p e r i o d ; most, however, were re lated to rapid populat ion growth which brought with i t expect-ancy of p r o s p e r i t y . The expansion of the c i t i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y Vancouver, created problems for the farmer or the would-be farmer - - increased taxa t ion , increased pr ices fo r land, shortage of labor , and pressures to adapt to new marketing methods and. to conform to s t r i c t e r san i ta ry regu la t ions . But the c i t i e s a lso provided markets which promised to be more l u c r a t i v e than any yet a v a i l a b l e . The farmer increased h is production and a lso h is determination to gain his share of the c i t y markets. The a g r i c u l t u r a l problems were i n t e n s i f i e d by what was commonly c a l l e d a " f i n a n c i a l s t r ingency" which became apparent at the end of 1912 and pers is ted through 1913 and into 1914. In December, 1912, a royal commission was appointed with W.H. Hayward as chairman to invest iga te a g r i c u l t u r a l c o n d i t i o n s . The repor t , publ ished in 1914, " 9 1 s p e c i f i e d the problems. The commissioners, in order to gain perspect ive on local condi t ions had v i s i t e d Europe, A u s t r a l i a , New Zealand, the p r a i r i e prov inces , Washington, Oregon, Ca l i fo rn ia , " 92 Ontar io and Wisconsin, and as a resu l t of the i r i n q u i r i e s , f i rmly 93 recommended the encouragement of cooperat ive a s s o c i a t i o n . In 1913 an amendment to the A g r i c u l t u r a l Assoc ia t ions Act of 1911 was passed which e n t i t l e d cooperat ive assoc ia t ions to a p r o v i n c i a l government loan amounting to eighty percent of t h e i r subscribed 94 c a p i t a l . It was under the prov is ions of th is act that the Fraser Va l ley Mi 1k Producers' Assoc ia t ion incorporated and appl ied for a char te r . The dairymen who appl ied for the F .V .M .P .A . char ter in 1913 sharedswith other farmers the problems created by the economic recession of that year . A shortage of cap i ta l made c r e d i t d i f f i c u l t t o o b t a i n . This created hardship for farmers forced to increase production because of decreased re turns . The s o l u t i o n appeared to be control of the market - - whether for mi lk , f r u i t or wheat — in order to d i v e r t p r o f i t s from the middle man to the farmer and in order to s t a b i l i z e the market by preventing seasonal " g l u t s . " The Okanagan United Growers a lso organized in 1913 in order to improve the i r p o s i t i o n on the p r a i r i e market. Okanagan and Fraser Va l ley farmers were aware of the success that the C a l i f o r n i a f ru i t -growers had achieved through cooperat ion. The United Grain Growers' Grain Company had s u c c e s s f u l l y marketed the grain of Canadian p r a i r i e farmers s ince 1906, and through fa rmer -cont ro l led e levator companies, wheat-producers were e l im ina t ing the middle men. Mi lk-producers in the areas surrounding most large North American c i t i e s were moving. towards-cooperat ive.act ion in order to market the i r mi lk . Although these successfu l ventures provided i n s p i r a t i o n and example, each cooperat ive came into being as a resu l t of local condi t ions and was shaped in response to local requirements. The emergence of the Fraser Val ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n can be seen in terms of the entrepeneuria l character of the f i r s t farming ventures in the V a l l e y , the high cost of land in both c a p i t a l and labor and the constant , and throughout most of the per iod from I858 to 1913, very rapid expansion of markets. The . implementation of government measures to encourage more e f f i c i e n t da i ry ing prac t ices had l a i d the ground work for the success of the creameries.which provided experience and education in cooperat ive a c t i o n . The creameries and condensar ies , placed c lose to the producer, had solved many of the problems of dea l ing with a per ishable product. Some.of the best markets, on the.mining f r o n t i e r s in Klondyke, A t l i n and Kootenay communities, re in forced the "Gold Rush" mental i ty of the Fraser Va l ley farmers. But dairy products , f i r s t bu t te r , then condensed mi lk , met increasing competit ion as improved storage and t ranspor ta t ion f a c i l i t i e s opened markets to world compet i t ion. Producers began to crowd in to . the l u c r a t i v e f l u i d market in the burst ing c i t y created by the r a i l r o a d . Among the o p t i m i s t i c , aggressive dairymen were a few who rea l i zed that farmers would need to organize in order to .ach ieve order ly marketing i f the best advantage was to be obtained from the l a tes t in a se r ies of marketing o p p o r t u n i t i e s . 11 THE BIRTH OF THE ASSOCIATION i . The members of the Hayward Commission on A g r i c u l t u r e who recommended cooperat ive a s s o c i a t i o n found throughout the Va l ley "a strong theore t ica l be l ie f , in the benef i ts of cooperat ion."^ Although the complexi t ies of .market ing a g r i c u l t u r a l produce were concerning farmers everywhere in B r i t i s h Columbia in 1912 and 1913, there was, as y e t , l i t t l e success in so lv ing these problems through cooperat ion . Never-t h e l e s s , , in the Fraser Va l ley there was more than a " t h e o r e t i c a l " b e l i e f in the benef i ts of cooperat ion . A good.deal of p r a c t i c a l experience had been obtained in united a c t i o n , though not a l l of i t was as successfu l as the creamery ventures. A commune es tab l ished in Ruskin in the 1880's had operated success -f u l l y fo r about four years un t i l d issens ion over wages to be paid "key" men led to i t s d i s s o l u t i o n . E .H . Heaps and Company took over 2 the bu i ld ing constructed by the group. A da i ry a s s o c i a t i o n had formed in Hammond in the 1890 's, and years la ter .the reasons fo r i t s d i f f i c u l t i e s and f a i l u r e were reca l l ed as being the lack of a 3 comprehensive o r g a n i z a t i o n . A branch of the Farmers' A l l i a n c e which organized in 1882 was successfu l in gaining ce r ta in concessions from the government. Through the Patrons of Industry which succeeded the A l l i a n c e , , farmers were able to gain concessions on f re igh t and wharfage rates in V i c t o r i a , Nanaimo, Vancouver and New Westminster. They a lso forced down r e t a i l p r ices in New Westminster by br inging in goods from Toronto at competi t ive p r i c e s . ' ' Through the S e t t l e r s ' A s s o c i a t i o n of B r i t i s h Columbia farmers were able to get timber r ights and bet ter terms for those who had been unable to make pre-emption payments.^ The main object of the Farmers' Inst i tutes , estab1 ished in 1897 by an act of the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e , was the "disseminat ion of information in regard to a g r i c u l t u r e . " 7 Of the nineteen branches organized , e ight were in the Fraser V a l l e y . A dominion experimental farm was es tab l ished at Agassiz in 1888. Research car r ied on at th is s t a t i o n was of great benef i t to farmers attempting to improve product ion. Through the Farmers' Inst i tutes valuable technica l i n f o r -mation was more e a s i l y made a v a i l a b l e to producers and they were g educated in the p r i n c i p l e s of cooperat ion . In an area where land c l e a r i n g was a major problem, Farmers' Inst i tutes provided an important s e r v i c e by supplying stumping powder at reduced p r i c e s . The d i s t r u s t of government-sponsored o rgan iza t ions , so apparent in Ontar io and on the p r a i r i e s , was much less evident in B r i t i s h Columbia. Unt i l chaot ic condi t ionson the f l u i d market created complex marketing problems, the farmers' main concern was with production problems — d r a i n i n g , dyking, land c l e a r i n g , herd and crop improvement and improved methods of handling mi lk . L e g i s l a t i o n and the a c t i v i t i e s of government-appointed a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s had played an important part in provid ing e f f e c t i v e s o l u t i o n s . Many of the dairymen came to accept and to expect that problems should be solved through government a c t i o n . In 1903 the Mutual F i re Insurance Company of B r i t i s h Columbia had been incorporated on the i n i t i a t i v e of the Central Farmers' I ns t i tu te . This organiza t ion sti11 c a r r i e s on business today and has always been well supported.by members of the Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n . A year a f te r the Richmond producers had formed the i r Dairy Produce Company in 1904, the Ch i l l iwack Cooperative Assoc ia t ion had organized a consumers' cooperat ive . A f te r some i n i t i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s , i t c a r r i e d on business un t i l 1910, paying 3% in te res t to i t s members for the f i r s t four years . When lack of cap i ta l proh ib i ted expansion the stock was sold to a local merchant. The property owned by the A s s o c i a t i o n appreciated in value so that i t was poss ib le for the g cooperat ive to d i s s o l v e w i t h o u t . l o s s . Charles Evans was president from 1906 un t i l 1910,'^ and though a number of the d i r e c t o r s were businessmen, i t was a farmers' cooperat ive . Many of the names that appear over the years are la te r to be found on the shipping l i s t s of the F . V . M . P . A . The B r i t i s h Columbia Dairymen's A s s o c i a t i o n , f i r s t organized in 1894, was the veh ic le through which much information about improved production methods was made a v a i l a b l e to farmers. It a lso f a c i l i t a t e d the establishment of creameries, .and having served these purposes, disbanded. In 1906 the A s s o c i a t i o n was reorganized and played a s i g n i f i c a n t ro le in uni fy ing and organiz ing farmers, p a r t i c u l a r l y in the upper part of the V a l l e y . These farmer groups had formed in' response to a p a r t i c u l a r problem. In most cases they disbanded when that problem was s o l v e d ; in o thers , assoc ia t ions d is in tegra ted or disappeared .because they f a i l e d f i n a n c i a l l y . There was no Fraser Va l ley farmer group in ear ly 1913 through which marketing problems could be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y s o l v e d ; but the e a r l i e r o rgan iza t ions , whether successful or not , .had provided the means by which p r a c t i c a l experience had been.gained, leadership had emerged and farmers had become f a m i l i a r with cooperat ive p r i n c i p l e s . I i In 1913, undoubtedly st imulated by the Hayward Commission Report on A g r i c u l t u r e , many cooperat ives became incorporated in B r i t i s h Columbia. Of those formed in the Fraser V a l l e y , only the Fraser Va l ley Mi 1k Producers 1 Assoc ia t ion was chartered in order to deal with marketing problems on a va l ley -wide b a s i s . The a p p l i c a t i o n for the F . V . M . P . A . charter had t h i r t y s ignatures . It has been poss ib le to obtain information about most of these men. Short biographies are presented in Appendix C arranged in the order in which the names appeared on the l i s t of s u b s c r i b e r s . Three of the farms represented were run on a partnership basis so t h i r t y - t h r e e men were invo lved . An examination of th is information provides an ins ight into the type of leadership which made poss ib le the successfu l formation of the dairymen's cooperat ive . The s u b s c r i b e r s ' l i s t represents farmers l i v i n g in .var ious parts of the V a l l e y . The largest group is from C h i l l i w a c k . It has been poss ib le to estimate c l o s e l y or to learn the exact b i r thdate of twenty-eight of these men. Apart from Heaton, who apparently was s t i l l a student , the Starr b ro thers , Jay aged twenty-eight and Perry aged twenty-s ix , were the youngest members. George McCle l land , at seventy-four , was the o ldest member. Seven men were in the i r f i f t i e s and f i f t e e n were in the i r f o r t i e s . Of the twenty-eight , only Park, Chadsey and Parker were s t i l l in t h e i r t h i r t i e s . The majori ty of the farmers.were middle-aged; the movement was not led by youthful i d e a l i s t s . Most of the F .V .M.P .A . charter members appear to have been well es tab l ished as farmers. Some who had been born in the Va l ley or who. had ar r ived at an ear ly age had acquired land when pr ices were low. A few had a r r i ved with f i n a n c i a l resources; others had worked hard at farm labor or logging in order to save money to buy the i r farms. Much of the b iographical material is sketchy, but the information obtained indicates that a s u r p r i s i n g number of the group of F .V .M .P .A . • charter members were . involved in pub l i c o f f i c e , e i t h e r as members of school boards or c o u n c i l s . Most of these men gave leadership in farmer o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Four had been or were to become a c t i v e in p o l i t i c s at the p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l . The place of b i r t h of th i r ty - two of the t h i r t y - t h r e e members is known. A comparison of the b i r thp laces o f . t h e male populat ion of the New Westminster d i s t r i c t in 1911 with the b i r thp laces of the 11 charter members of the F .V .M .P .A . indicates that in comparison to the i r proport ion in the populat ion a greater number.of the co -operat ive members were B r i t i s h , American and Canadian born, fewer were European and none were A s i a n . B r i t i s h Columbians were under-represented in the i n i t i a l membership of the F . V . M . P . A . , probably because a high percentage of those .nat ive to . the province were in a low age group. It is a lso probable that many of those born in B r i t i s h Columbia had c a p i t a l i z e d on land holdings and had escaped the long hours da i ry ing required by moving into more l u c r a t i v e business enterpr ises or less demanding occupat ions . The fac t that da i ry farming requires more cap i ta l than most branches of a g r i c u l t u r e probably expla ins why few Asians were engaged in i t . Pre judice against Or ien ta ls and East Indians enter ing the industry was very s t rong . The F .V;M:P;A. Minutes fo r A p r i l 27, 1918 reveal that d i r e c t o r s passed a motion to " a l l o t the l i s t of 1 2 stock submitted excepting that, of Partap S i n g h . " This p o l i c y of excluding a milk producer ran counter to the p o l i c y of attempting to gain control of a l l milk in the V a l l e y . It is not s u r p r i s i n g , there fore , that one year la te r the Board of Di rectors passed a motion "that we take a contract from Hindoos and handle milk but do 13 not issue s t o c k . " The Richmond local passed a motion in the summer of 1918 s t a t i n g . t h a t "our associat ion ' .not i fy Head O f f i c e that a Jap is shipping mi lk . . . and that our a s s o c i a t i o n is decidedly opposed to t h i s . " 1 4 A few years l a t e r , E.D. Barrow, as M in is te r of A g r i c u l t u r e , announced that he was anxious that no Or ien ta ls be permitted to purchase land in the new Sumas reclamation area. 1 "* And no Or ien ta ls d i d . The land lay vacant f o r . s e v e r a l years un t i l C E . Eckert 16 ass is ted Mennonites to s e t t l e . The da i ry ing industry had many problems, but in the Fraser Va l ley the milk producers were never plagued by tensions between Or ienta ls and whites as were the market-gardeners and vegetable-growers. The percentage of members born in Quebec is less s i g n i f i c a n t that i t would f i r s t appear, and the Ontario inf luence is s t ronger . The Michauds from Quebec, who represent-one f a m i l y , have been considered as separate.members, and A lec J e s s , though born in Quebec was ra ised in Ontar io . Of the three B r i t i s h Columbia-born, two had parents who were from Ontar io , and the t h i r d , Perry S t a r r , had an Ontar io-born mother. Of the four American-born members, two, M.E. Alexander and H.W. Vanderhoof, ,both d i r e c t o r s , returned to the United S ta tes . The natural boundaries of the Fraser Va l ley extend considerably south of the f o r t y - n i n t h p a r a l l e l and Sumas was for many years an important Va l ley cent re . The bu i ld ing of the B .C . E l e c t r i c Railway, however, the dra in ing of Sumas Lake and the completion of a more s a t i s f a c t o r y road.1ink to New Westminster and Vancouver t ightened the Canadian part of the Va l ley in d e f i a n c e . o f natural b o u n d a r i e s . 1 7 Nevertheless, f r i e n d l y re la t ions developed .between the F .V .M .P .A . and dairymen's assoc ia t ions in Whatcom and Skagit Count ies . Fraser Val ley farmers were undoubtedly inf luenced by the success of the United Dairy Assoc ia t ion of Washington which.by 1922 had a to ta l membership of 6000 in s i x county assoc ia t ions and owned manufacturing 18 plants worth $1,500,000. One fac t that the table reveals very c l e a r l y . i s the strong B r i t i s h inf luence on the formation of".the C o o p e r a t i v e . . In B r i t a i n , cooperat ion had less impact on a g r i c u l t u r e than on other areas o f . 19 the economy, but numerous marketing and supply assoc ia t ions developed. Most of the B r i t i s h - b o r n charter members.undoubtedly had some know-ledge of these assoc ia t ions or experience with some other type of . . 20 ' cooperat ive o r g a n i z a t i o n . Though there were other men in the Va l ley who'were a lso responsible for the success of the F . V . M . P . A . , among these t h i r t y - t h r e e o r i g i n a l members was a core of leaders who took:the i n i t i a t i v e , men who were committed to cooperat ive marketing.' They canvassed f r iends 21 and neighbors in order to obtain the required number of s ignatures and then continued to f i g h t i n e r t i a and regional j ea lous ies in order to launch the cooperat ive . 37 i i i " 'Combine, combine, combine' is the watchword of the present age," sa id W.E. Sco t t , Deputy Min is ter of A g r i c u l t u r e for B r i t i s h 22 Columbia ear ly in 1913. Before the year was over , many farmers had combined for var ious purposes. The f ru i t -g rowers of the Okanagan Val ley had launched a successfu l organizat ion.which enabled them to market coopera t i ve ly . In the F r a s e r ' V a l l e y , the F . V . M . P . A . was only one of a number.of cooperat ives chartered . for the purpose of improving marketing or for improving production and f a c i l i t a t i n g the purchase of s u p p l i e s . Ear ly in 1913 a cooperat ive formed in the Maple Ridge d i s t r i c t for the purpose o f .buy ing f l o u r and.feed in car load l o t s . Though the shares were pr ices at 10<J each, $3,200 was subscribed and by May, the United.Farmers were'buying eight car loads per month and 23 planning to b u i l d a large warehouse in Haney. S imi la r groups formed in many p laces , usual ly through the Farmers' I n s t i t u t e s . Strawberry Hi 11 , H a l l ' s P r a i r i e and Burquitlam were three successfu l assoc ia t ions in the Surrey d i s t r i c t . The L ive Stock Branch of the p rov inc ia l Department of A g r i -cu l ture ass i sted in i nst i tut i ng'and conduct i ng Cow Test i ng Assoc iat ions under the prov is ions of the Agr icu l tural . Assoc ia t ions Act.. Cow testers .were appointed to areas pastur ing at . least 400 cows i f 2k farmers wished to support such an a s s o c i a t i o n . The f i r s t two Cow Test ing Assoc ia t ions were organized in Ch i l l iwack almost immediately and s i x months la te r a th i rd s tar ted in Langley. Farmers.were being forced to produce as e f f i c i e n t l y as p o s s i b l e . The Cow Test ing Assoc ia t ions were a valuable means by which they could assess the value of var ious feeds and weed out "the boarded cow." The Ch i l l iwack Producers' Exchange was granted incorporat ion 25 ea r l y in June of 1913 fo r the purpose of marketing farm produce and provid ing feed and other suppl ies to members. It appears to have been s tar ted when i t became evident that the Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n could not begin to do business immediately. The Exchange provided a wider range of serv ices for the upper v a l l e y da i ry farmers than the Lower Mainland Milk Shippers ' Union, merely a bargaining a s s o c i a t i o n , was able to perform for the lower va l l ey members. Most of the d i r e c t o r s of the Exchange were la te r members of the F . V . M . P . A . and three were a l s o charter members. The Producers' Exchange operated 26 s u c c e s s f u l l y un t i l i t sold out to B u c k e r f i e l d ' s in 1928. W.H. T a y l o r , wr i t ing in 1928, voiced an opin ion which appears to have been common among many farmers. Cooperative e f f o r t s were f rus t ra ted and delayed, he suggested, because of the large number of farmers' organizat ions which d iv ided the producers and prevented 27 united a c t i o n . While i t is true that regional j ea lous ies were s t rong , and that i t took a combination of f i rm leadership and economic circumstance to br ing the va l ley -wide cooperat ive into be ing , one can see, never the less , that the p lethora of farmers' groups was an i n d i c a t i o n , not merely of d i v i s i o n , but of regional o r g a n i z a t i o n . It was from the smaller cooperat ives than the F .V .M .P .A . leadership emerged and i t was on the sol i d . b a s i s of the i r membership that the Fraser Va l ley Mi 1k Producers' Assoc ia t ion was f i rmly founded. It is not d i f f i c u l t to trace the gradual conso l ida t ion which led to the announcement in January, 1917. that the Fraser Va l ley dairymen were prepared to go into bus iness . In 1906 a meeting of represent-a t ives from Edenbank and Ch i l l iwack Creameries, the Ch i l l iwack Co-operat ive A s s o c i a t i o n and the Ch i l l iwack Farmers' Exchange, a success -fu l f r u i t - g r o w e r s ' cooperat ive , had considered the a d v i s a b i l i t y and f e a s i b i l i t y of estab1ishing a d i s t r i b u t i n g depot in Vancouver." The idea had received considerable support , but several of the farmers 28 voiced fears that the project was t o o - l a r g e . Nothing came of i t . The pattern for j o i n t ac t ion was, however, being e s t a b l i s h e d . The most s i g n i f i c a n t of the organizat ions which l a i d the basis for the F .V .M .P .A . was undoubtedly the Lower Mainland Milk and Cream Shippers ' A s s o c i a t i o n , a bargaining a s s o c i a t i o n through which the farmers of Langley, P i t t Meadows and Delta attempted to strengthen the i r pos i t ion in r e l a t i o n to Vancouver d e a l e r s . Each member was assessed $5 29 to meet the expenses of the group. It was the execut ive of th is organiza t ion that c a l l e d a general meeting in New Westminster in 1910, j u s t before the completion of the B .C . E l e c t r i c Railway l i n e to C h i l l i w a c k , at which the idea of forming a va l ley -wide cooperat ive was f i r s t d i s c u s s e d . Lower Va l ley farmers suggested a union of the Richmond Dairy Produce Company and the Chi 11iwack Creamery. Present at that meeting were W.J . Park, P i t t Meadows; John O l i v e r , De l ta ; J.W. Berry, . Langley; E.D. Barrow and 30 C . E . Ecker t , C h i l l i w a c k ; and H.W. Vanderhoof, Huntingdon. A l l these men la te r served as d i r e c t o r s of the F . V . M . P . A . and f i v e of the s i x were char ter members. Though they represented var ious d i s t r i c t s , they saw the farmers' problems in terms of the whole V a l l e y . The Ch i l l iwack farmers were not yet ready to consider amal-gamation with Richmond Dai ry . E.D. Barrow appears to have encouraged the creamery patrons to make the best use o f . t h e i r bargaining p o s i t i o n By 1913, however, Chi 11iwack farmers were a lso encountering d i f f i -c u l t i e s . Further conso l ida t ion occurred as var ious groups of dairymen used the agency of the Chil1 iwack Dairymen's A s s o c i a t i o n to solve the i r common problems. D i rectors of th is organiza t ion met on February 22, 1913 " fo r the purpose of e l e c t i n g commissioners to represent the a s s o c i a t i o n in matters per ta in ing to the adjustment of p r i c e s , 32 t ranspor ta t ion and l e g i s l a t i o n f o r t h e year 1913." Plans were l a i d for addresses to be de l ivered to the members.in var ious d i s t r i c t s Among those chosen to address the meetings were E.D. Barrow, president of the Ch i l l iwack Creamery, and Alex Mercer, a d i r e c t o r of the same creamery; E .A . Wells who had taken over from his fa ther the running of Edenbank the year be fore , and . C E . Ecker t , a Ch i l l iwack Creamery d i r e c t o r , who was to be large ly responsible for the form-at ion of the Ch i l l iwack Producers' Exchange organized la te r that year . . The commissioners appointed .by . t h e . d i r e c t o r s of the Ch i l l iwack Dairymen's A s s o c i a t i o n met with the Lower Mainland Milk Shippers ' Assoc ia t ion in the spr ing of 1913- It was at th is meeting that a dec is ion was reached " to -organ ize a milk sh ippers ' exchange where a l l milk sold in the c i t i e s would be handled through a c l e a r i n g 33 house owned by the milk s h i p p e r s . " The object was to control the supply so that a 11 . s h i p p e r s , . l a r g e and s m a l l , would have a steady market for the i r mi lk . The f i r s t meeting of the Fraser Va l ley Mi 1k Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n , held in New Westminster on May 20, 1913, was a d i r e c t outcome of th is d e c i s i o n . The f i r s t business done by the newly e lec ted , d i r e c t o r s was to appoint Thomas Forster to canvass the lower v a l l e y for new members and to appoint Barrow and Eckert to canvass the Ch i l l iwack d i s t r i c t . A t - the f i r s t annual meeting in January, 1914, John O l i v e r and C E . Eckert were appointed to draf t a form of 37 cont rac t . The d i r e c t o r s moved slowly and c a r e f u l l y , obviously aware that few farmers were ready for the i r ambitious undertaking. Dairymen in the lower v a l l e y were loathe to share the Vancouver market with Chi l l iwack producers. They f e l t that t h e i r own loca t ion c lose to the market gave.them a stronger claim to i t . Patrons of the Ch i l l iwack Creamery were a lso re luctant to merge t h e i r h ighly successfu l venture into a larger union. Edenbank patrons had suf fered ser ious f i n a n c i a l losses as a resu l t of the i r venture in to . the c i t y market. This served as a warning to the Ch i l l iwack Creamery patrons. Though the Edenbank Creamery-Company LImited was i n s t a l l e d in the Ci ty Market in Vancouver as an ou t l e t for the products of the Sardis Creamery, the producers had l i t t l e control over the pr ices rece ived . In the spr ing of 1912 in a d ispute over re turns , Wells gave not ice that Edenbank Farm intended to d iscont inue shipping to the retai1 out 1et. The Vancouver branch began to lose money heavi ly during the recession of 1913-1914 and was closed up, but not before p r o f i t s from the Sardis business and money advanced 39 by the share-holders had been swallowed up. The Ch i l l iwack Creamery patrons were less vu lnerab le . By maintaining t h e i r butter product ion , they had assured themselves of a steady year round return . They were a lso in a p o s i t i o n to take advantage of the f l u i d market in the winter months when bet ter pr ices p r e v a i l e d . The annual statement f o r the Ch i l l iwack Creamery indicated that the year which saw Edenbank on the verge of bankruptcy was one in which the Ch i l l iwack Creamery did more business that i t had ever done. It showed a gross p r o f i t of 40 $49,955.87 and a net p r o f i t of $4,765-67. It is not d i f f i c u l t to understand why the patrons rejected overtures made by the d i r e c t o r s of the F .V .M .P .A . i v Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n d i r e c t o r s , the i r plans made, had to wait for economic c o n d i t i o n s . t o create a c l imate of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n among farmers in order to gain enough support to br ing about amalgamation. A step in th is d i r e c t i o n was taken in May, 1914. Wholesalers in Vancouver repudiated a contract made two months before with the Lower Mainland Milk Shippers ' A s s o c i a t i o n . The contract c a l l e d for the same pr ice for milk during A p r i l and May as obtained during the balance of the summer months. That p r i c e 41 was to be 55i per pound b u t t e r f a t . The f a i l u r e of the dealers to honor th is contract strengthened the resolve of the small, group of men who were attempting to form the cooperat ive and gained them more support . Mass meetings were held in both .Chi 11iwack and New West-minster . The Westminster gathering was presided over by Thomas F o r s t e r , president of the Mi 1k Shippers 1 A s s o c i a t i o n . E.D. Barrow 42 chaired the Ch i l l iwack r a l l y . Farmers from both ends of the Va l ley were beginning to act together. The marketing s i t u a t i o n in . the summer of 1914 was .chaot ic . ; Poor f inane ia1 . cond i t ions s t i l l p r e v a i l e d , a f f e c t i n g the market for condensed mi lk . Managers of the condensaries in the Va l ley found the i r stocks p i l i n g up in warehouses and they were rap id ly reaching the point where they would have to stop taking milk.-.'. This would increase the supply avai1ab1e for the f l u i d market, . a lready f looded in the summer. This huge surplus put the farmers at the mercy of the d e a l e r s . Judging by newspaper accounts of the meetings, Thomas F o r s t e r , the former union organ ize r , saw the s i t u a t i o n mainly in terms of the act ion, which the farmer should take in face of the repudiat ion 43 of a con t rac t . Both Barrow, and Eckert presented t h e , s i t u a t i o n in more complex terms. The bas ic problem was not merely oppressive t a c t i c s on the part of the d e a l e r s . H.E. Almond of Vancouver C i ty Dairy and L. Cheval ly of the B.C. .Condensing Company were asked to attend the Chi11iwack meeting to share in the d i s c u s s i o n . This i n v i t a t i o n was obviously recogni t ion of the fact that they shared a common problem. It may a lso have been, of course , a not : too subt le way of putt ing pressure on the d e a l e r s . '• Almond warned the farmers to be carefu l in the i r e f f o r t s to c o n t r o l . t h e c i t y milk supply and wished them success in the i r work, h ighly i r o n i c sentiments in view of the c o n f l i c t s that lay ahead. The bas ic problem was not over -supp ly . B r i t i s h Columbia continued 45 to import large quant i t i es of bu t te r , and the Va l ley could barely supply the Vancouver f l u i d market during the winter months. The bas ic problem was lack of c o n t r o l . The so lu t ion lay in handling the summer surplus and thus s tab i 1 i z ing the market. Park, Barrow, Eckert and the i r supporters f e l t that the farmers could do th is by c o o p e r a t i o n . 1 By cooperat ion , a 1 s o , . a . farmers! a s s o c i a t i o n could take over the r e t a i l market and by reorganiz ing the d e l i v e r y system 46 cheapen the cost of milk to the consumer. A handful of.men had analyzed the problem and dev ised.a s o l u t i o n , but nothing could be done un t i l they were assured of s u f f i c i e n t support from the farmers. At the next meeting of the F . V . M . P . A . d i r e c t o r s in June of 1914, W.E. Buckingham was appointed c a n v a s s e r . f o r stock 47 s u b s c r i p t i o n s . The European war broke out that summer, and the enthusiasm of the spr ing meeting appears to have worn o f f . A new B.C. Mi lk Condensing plant in Ladner, which had gone into operat ion in the s p r i n g , absorbed some of the Delta s u r p l u s . When the Sumas branch of the condensary was forced to p a r t i a l c l o s u r e , the Ch i l l iwack Creamery took the surplus mi lk . An embargo on United States stock and dai ry products , brought to a culminat ion sooner than expected, promised protected markets for 48 Val ley products , and the summer c r i s i s p a s s e d . . But the work of amalgamation went on. An attempt was made to 49 unite the Ch i l l iwack Creamery and the Chi11iwack Producers' Exchange. By combining the Exchange, which shipped mi lk to the f l u i d market, and the Creamery, which continued tomake butter and ice-cream with its. surplus, ,Chi11 iwack dairymen were attempting to do what . i t was hoped the F . V . M . P . A . would do for the whole V a l l e y . The producers required more c a p i t a l . They planned to launch the i r venture with- a p r o v i n c i a l government loan made a v a i l a b l e to cooperat ive a s s o c i a t i o n s under the prov is ions of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Assoc ia t ions Act of 1911."^ The p r o v i n c i a l government, however, was no longer w i l l i n g to advance such loans because the outbreak, of war.had created a shortage of funds. The members of the Exchange each paid $20 more on the i r holdings and the cooperat ive continued in operat ion."* 1 But amalgamation was delayed. The change of government p o l i c y a f fec ted the plants of the F .V .M .P .A . too and delayed the commencement of bus iness . At the annual meeting in January, 1915 i t was decided to continue c o l l e c t i n g funds . . The work of r e c r u i t i n g members went on , .bu t s ince the farm land of France had become a b a t t l e ground Canadians were urged to produce food for export to Europe. Buckingham found the.farmers of Delta and Langley too busy harvest ing gra in crops' to l i s t e n to proposi t ions 52 about a da i ry cooperat ive in the summer of 1915. At the t h i r d annual 53 meeting seven d i r e c t o r s were e l e c t e d . John O l i v e r r e t i r e d . George McCle l land , L.W. Embree and M.E. Alexander jo ined the rest of the o r i g i n a l group. The d i r e c t o r s were instructed to proceed with the organiza t ion u n t i l 80% of the mi Ik producers in the Va l ley were signed up. The Canadian Northern Railway, completed. in 1915, opened the market to more sh ippers . Within a short time a milk t ra in operated from Rosedal 54 to Port Mann, stopping at fourteen points.- Though the p r i c e of dairy products remained s t a t i o n a r y , the cost of feed.and of most other goods began to r i s e sharp ly . The farmers found that they could not make a p r o f i t ; many were susta in ing a loss at"the 55C per pound but te r fa t they were rece iv ing from Vancouver d e a l e r s . Individual shippers had attempted' to negotiate a bet ter p r i c e , but without success . In 1 ate October , . 1916, fo r ty da i rymen»represen t ing several d i s t r i c t from Ch i l l iwack to P i t t Meadows and Langley, met with representat ives from the r e t a i l f irms and succeeded in securing an increase of 5<J> making the p r i c e of bu t te r fa t 60$ per pound.' ' ' ' The success of th is venture proved t h e . e f f e c t i v e n e s s of united act ion and revived in terest in the formation of a cooperat ive a s s o c i a t i o n . . Farmers in Agassiz had come to the conclus ion that a lower- re turn , i f steady, would be preferable to the uncerta inty of the f l u i d market. Through the Farmers' Inst i tu te they had taken an opt ion on property to be used to bu i ld a cooperat ive creamery. Among the f i r s t upper Va l ley dairymen to gain access to the Vancouver market, Agassiz farmers were now being forced to produce lower-pr iced secondary products . The plans of the Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n of fered a means by which th is pattern could be prevented from taking shape. Presented with the oppor tun i ty , most Agassiz farmers jo ined the Coopera t ive ."^ Support was not as strong in a l l areas of the V a l l e y . Travel was d i f f i c u l t and some places were not canvassed. In Ch i l l iwack there was some f r i c t i o n between the Creamery patrons who remained loyal to the Cooperative and those who took advantage of the winter shortage to ship independently. On the other hand, F . V . M . P . A . d i r e c t o r s pointed out that the Creamery, by keeping the surplus o f f the Vancouver market during the summer, al lowed.farmers across and fur ther down the r i v e r to put a l l the i r product on the market. "In s h o r t , " declared C H . Evans, "they invested the i r funds to maintain a creamery to hold the i r milk o f f the market so that others with no s i m i l a r investment could take advantage of i t . " ' ' 7 During periods of shortage dealers could buy accommodation milk at market p r i c e s . "The creamer ies ," sa id Evans, "were working hand in glove with c i t y d e a l e r s , a l lowing themselves to rg be t o o l s . . . to play foo tba l l with producers ." Gradually the arguments took . e f fec t . At the annua 1 - meeting in January, 1917, i t was announced that . 80% of the mi Ik produced was under the control of the A s s o c i a t i o n . There were 848 members, each of whom had signed an agreement to buy stock to the value of $50 per can, ,based on the average can shipment for the previous year.\ Park le t i t be known la ter that the execut ive had l i t t l e idea how many shippers were in the V a l l e y . A f te r the i r organizat ion was more complete they rea l i zed that not more than 60% of the dairymen.had been signed up. - A l l the large producers in the Va l ley were members of the Cooperat ive , however. When the dealers found that the farmers they approached.that spr ing were committed to the F .V .M .P .A . they accepted .the d e c l a r a t i o n of the Cooperative leaders that they had e f f e c t i v e control and agreed to buy mi 1k from t h e m . ^ The farmers were in bus iness , but they.had won the f i r s t round on a b l u f f . Farmers a l l over the North American cont inent were faced with the problem of adapting to*rap id 1 y .. i ncreas i ng i ndus t r ia 1 i zat ion. Many suf fered a sense of a l i e n a t i o n as urban growth encroached on farm land and drew young people to the c i t y . Caught in. an economic squeeze as costs s p i r a l l e d upward, they resorted to p o l i t i c a l ac t ion or turned to cooperat ive marketing. The react ion of Fraser Va l ley dairymen to these pressures and to the s t r a i n s of a war-time economy which accelerated them was not d i s s i m i l a r to that of other farmers in North America. In 1916 the Non-Part isan League" of North Dakota-e lected. the governor of the state and won a majority in the state l e g i s l a t u r e . In O n t a r i o , J . J . Morrison^presided over the growth of t h e U n i t e d Farmers of Ontar io Clubs which were to provide an e l e c t o r a l machine e f f e c t i v e enough to carry a farmer government into p r o v i n c i a l o f f i c e in 1919-Henry Wise Wood became the president of the United Farmers of A lber ta in 1916. In Manitoba and Saskatchewan the farmers were showing an increasing in terest in p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n . . In the Fraser V a l l e y , John O l i v e r and E.D. Barrow were e lected to the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i v e as L ibera l party members, but they were, in e f f e c t , representat ive of a Fraser Va l ley farm protest movement.;' Mi lk shippers t r ibu ta ry to most large North American c i t i e s were taking c o l l e c t i v e a c t i o n . The New England.Mi Ik Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n , formed in 1913, incorporated on a non-stock, non-pro f i t basis in 1917 in order to so lve the problems of farmers shipping to the Boston market. The Dairymen's Cooperative Sales Company was formed' in 1916 in the P i t t s -burgh area; the Mi.lk Producers' Cooperative. Mi Ik Company, s tar ted in 1916, was centred in Chicago;., and the Dairymen's League Cooperative A s s o c i a t i o n was o rgan ized . in 1919 by farmers in the Cleveland mi lk shed. Most of these organizat ions were based on e a r l i e r cooperat ive assoc ia t ions or stock companies, some of which had become i n a c t i v e . ^ C a l i f o r n i a dairymen, nodoubt inf luenced by ' the success of the C a l i f o r n i a F ru i t Growers' A s s o c i a t i o n , . organized round market centres in Sacramento,-Oakland,.San F r a n c i s c o , F resno , .Los .Angeles, El Centro, Soledad and San Diego. The Associated Dairymen, a federat ion o f . f i v e of these assoc ia t ions became incorporated on August h, 1917- At the c lose of 1919 th is organ iza t ion ' included.approximately, e ight . thousand 62 dairymen and eight a s s o c i a t i o n s . The Inland Empire Mi 1k Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n in Spokane, Washington; The Oregon.Dairymen's League of Por t land , Oregon; and the United Dairy Assoc ia t ion of Washington.centred at Seat t le fol lowed the lead of the C a l i f o r n i a dairymen. Of twenty- f ive farmers' milk d i s t r i b u t i n g companies organized in 64 the United States in May,,1920, only three had formed before 1913, the year the Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n obtained i t s f i r s t char te r . By 1917, the year the F . V . M . P . A . went into bus iness , eleven of the twenty- f ive were e s t a b l i s h e d . ^ ^ The completion of the B .C. E l e c t r i c l i n e to Ch i l l iwack in 1910 was one of the most s i g n i f i c a n t factors in creat ing.market ing problems in Vancouver. The d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n over r i s i n g costs of production which drove North American farmers into agrar ian movements and p o l i t i c a l par t i es created . the unres t j in the Fraser Va l ley necessary to gain farmer support fo r the plan to achieve order ly marketing through cooperat ive a c t i o n . The ear ly d i r e c t o r s of the F . V . M . P . A . must have gained ideas and knowledge from the experience of other farmers, but both in taking p o l i t i c a1 . a c t i o n and in cooperating to control marketing they were well in the vanguard of North American dairymen taking simi1ar a c t i o n . Ill THE FARMERS IN BUSINESS The d e c i s i o n of the Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n to go into bus iness , announced at the annual meeting in January, 1917, was made at the beginning of a year during which pr ices fo r farm products rose very sharp ly . The i n i t i a l success of the F . V . M . P . A . can be a t t r i b u t e d , in par t , to th is fortunate t iming. The Va l ley was d iv ided into s ixteen d i s t r i c t s at the January meeting and canvassing committees were appointed in each; To a large extent the success of the F .V .M .P .A . has l a in in the strength of i ts l o c a l s . The loca ls sprang into being qu ick ly because regional organiza t ion had taken place over a long.per iod of time and the conso l ida t ion o f . l o c a l . g r o u p s had been gradua l . Success would appear to be inev i tab le for an organiza t ion so f i rm ly based, beginning i t s business operat ion at such an opportune time. It was, however, the ear ly success of the F.Vi 'M.P.A.. which created d i v i s i o n among the farmers and prevented the organiza t ion from achieving i ts goals immed i a t e l y . New d i r e c t o r s were e lected at the January meeting: H.W. Vanderhoof, W.J . Park, J.W. Berry , C E . Ecker t , E.D. Barrow, Alex Davie and C.H.Evans. The d i r e c t o r a t e moved q u i c k l y . They negotiated s u c c e s s f u l l y with the milk condensing plants at Ladner and South Sumas; they obtained contracts from t h e « V a l l e y Dai ry , Standard Dairy and Turner 's Da i ry , and leased both Edenbank and Ch i l l iwack Creameries with an opt ion to purchase. By the beginning of March they had es tab l ished a head o f f i c e in the Standard Bank Bui ld ing in Vancouver and were using the bu i ld ing of the Richmond Dairy Produce Company as a centra l d i s t r i b u t i n g depot. The F . V . M . P . A . had taken over a l l business done by the Richmond. Da i ry , which had been in ser ious f i n a n c i a l d i f f i c u l t y , and the manager, E .G . Sherwood, had been h i red as general manager of the Cooperat ive . By-laws were drawn up for the newly organized l o c a l s . A f te r the milk c o l l e c t i n g system was reorganized, milk was de l ivered to the Ch i l l iwack Creamery and the Condensary without overlapping at a saving of $14 per day.^ But o f f e r s to cooperate with Vancouver a u t h o r i t i e s and c i t y dealers in an attempt to reorganize the d e l i v e r y systern were not accepted. Small dealers were a f r a i d that in the non-competi t ive system they would have no opportunity to expand, and c o u l d . e a s i l y be dr iven out of bus iness . Pr ices were s t e a d i l y increased. In May the F . V . M . P . A . was standing f i rm to a p r i c e of 60£ per pound but te r fa t to condensers. Throughout 2 the summer, p r i c e s . t o wholesalers were s t e a d i l y increased. Af ter the th i rd wholesale increase in J u l y , the r e t a i l p r ice rose from 9 quarts for $1 to 8 quarts for $1. A c i v i c committee in Vancouver invest igated the s i t u a t i o n and came to the conclus ion that the farmers were not rece iv ing "an unduly high p r i c e for t h e i r p roduct . " By September the d i r e c t o r s set the p r i c e of milk to the condensers at 72-<j per pound but te r fa t to increase to 85<J by November I."* A p r i c e r i s e to 7 quarts for $1 fol lowed 6 the November increase in the wholesale p r i c e . The average p r i c e paid to the farmer for 1917 was 67-3$ per pound b u t t e r f a t . Of t h i s , 2.Si per pound was kept back as a deferred payment to provide the a s s o c i a t i o n with working c a p i t a l . 7 Ear ly in 1918 Edenbank and the Ch i l l iwack Creamery were bought out . The patrons refused to consent to a renewal of the lease and an extension of the opt ion to purchase, but did agree that s tock-ho lders who were producers, .and the owners of Edenbank, would accept payment in F .V ;M .P .A . shares. The A s s o c i a t i o n of fered to purchase the Ch i l l iwack Q Creamery for .$'16,500. and the Sardis Creamery for $11,000. During th i r teen years in operat ion the Chi11iwack Creamery had never f a i l e d to pay 3% to shareholders , a. record for c o o p e r a t i v e s . 1 ^ It is not d i f f i c u l t to understand why•creamery.patrons were re luctant to give up the i r t h r i v i n g e n t e r p r i s e . Having made the d e c i s i o n to j o i n the larger un ion , however, they were determined that a l l producers should share the cost of the creamery. The i r p l a n t , which had served them w e l l , returned 80<J on the d o l l a r , a f a i r rate of d e p r e c i a t i o n . 1 1 They brought into the F . V . M . P . A . not only an es tab l ished creamery and an expectat ion of a f a i r re turn , but a lso a. sol id core of members experienced in cooperation and ready to t rans fe r a steady loya l ty from the creamery to the new cooperat ive . The Ch i l l iwack farmers were not d i s a p p o i n t e d . . For the f i r s t time many of them received the i r share of the f l u i d market. Others in the Va l ley were sharing the cost of having the creamery absorb. the s u r p l u s . The 67.3^ average p r i c e for 1917 was a pooled p r ice and therefore represented a greater gain for the farmer who had been rece iv ing creamery p r i c e s , which were usua l ly under 50c, than' i t d id for those who had received re-turns from the f l u i d market. It was these farmers who complained that pr ices were too low, and muttered to themselves that the F . V . M . P . A . had 12 come into being to keep the Ch i l l iwack Creamery goi.ng. The 6% d iv idend which was declared at the end of the f i r s t year was 13 paid in the form of stock in the A s s o c i a t i o n , strengthening the Co-operat ive as the farmers prepared themselves to go into the r e t a i l bus iness . The d i r e c t o r s of t h e . F . V . M . P . A . had committed themselves to ra ise the p r i c e to producers without r a i s i n g i t to the consumer. Though the r e t a i l 53 p r i c e had r isen much more s<lowly and less d r a s t i c a l l y than the wholesale p r i c e , control of the r e t a i l trade appeared to be the only means by which the ob jec t i ve could be reached. It is c lear that th is control had been the aim of men l i k e Barrow, Park and Eckert from the incept ion of the F . V . M . P . A . , but there was some d i v i s i o n of opin ion among members and d i r e c t o r s , and th is goal appears to have been an issue in the e l e c t i o n for d i r e c t o r s in 1919. E.D. Barrow,, the f i r s t p res ident , had become Min is te r of A g r i c u l t u r e in the John 01iver government, arid as John O l i v e r had done, he resigned from his execut ive p o s i t i o n 'in the F . V . M . P . A . He was succeeded by John W. Berry who, with his new d i recto rate ^ and a mandate from the membership, c a r r i e d out plans to take over the r e t a i l milk business of Vancouver. By assessing members on the basis of $100 for each can of mi lk shipped and by taking notes for. twenty months, the A s s o c i a t i o n ra ised $150,000. With the notes fo r s e c u r i t y , the d i r e c t o r s borrowed the f u l l amount from the Bank of Montreal . Park was always proud that the loan was paid up in 1924 before i t was due. 1 ** At a cost of $250,000-the Standard, T u r n e r ' s , H i l l c r e s t , Mainland and South Vancouver Da i r ies and one or two smal ler d i s t r i b u t o r s were purchased. The' Standard Dairy Bu i ld ing was used as the r e t a i l headquarters. .G.-W. C la rke , i ts p r o p r i e t o r , became a par tner , accept ing F .V .M .P .A . shares as payment. In 1923 h is share was bought out . The da i ry was modernized and new equipment and machinery cost ing $40,000 were i n s t a l l e d . ^ 7 The Fraser Va l ley Dai r ies Limited was incorporated 18 "with a cap i ta l of $500,000 d i v i d e d . i n t o 5,000 s h a r e s . " The objects for which the company was incorporated were wide ranging, leaving the A s s o c i a t i o n f ree to deal at the r e t a i l . a n d wholesale level in almost any type of a g r i c u l t u r a l product. When the conso l ida t ion was complete, the .120.delivery .r igs which the r e t a i l e r s had operated in an over lapping competi t ive system were reduced 19 to 60 even though there was a 10% increase in the number of consumers. The average p r i c e paid to the F . V . M . P . A . members had r isen to 90.9t with a 20 3i deferred payment, but the r e t a i l p r ice of milk remained at 14.03c 21 per quar t . In New Westminster, where no such conso l ida t ion of ou t le ts had taken p l a c e , the pr ice was 16(. With the exception of Ottawa, in no large c i t y in Canada or the United States was the r e t a i l p r i c e of 22 milk lower than in Vancouver. The A s s o c i a t i o n began to expand in other d i r e c t i o n s . A feed department was organized. An agreement was drawn up whereby members of the var ious loca ls contracted to purchase a 11* feed.requirements through the A s s o c i a t i o n . The cost of feed had been such a major concern of the farmers that numerous 23 feed cooperat ives had been formed before the F . V . M . P . A . became organized. In 1920-1921, however, when the sharp•post-war recession caused a drop in pr ices there was less in terest in cooperat ive buying. The feed department was abandoned when i t los t money. Where there was i n i t i a t i v e the d i r e c t o r s encouraged the loca ls to continue the i r own e n t e r p r i s e . The highly successfu l Surrey Cooperat ive, a consumers' a s s o c i a t i o n , began in 1921 as an.outgrowth of the feed operat ion .carr ied on by the l o c a l . In 1917 the F . V . M . P . A . had set the p r i c e of milk to wholesalers and condensers. When th is pol icy. was continued in 1918, the Borden factory c losed at a moment's n o t i c e , leaving the A s s o c i a t i o n with a surplus of hOO cans. The creameries were put to f u l l production in the manufacture of butter and cheese. In 1919 when there was again lack of agreement over p r i c e , the Cooperative took the i n i t i a t i v e and cut o f f the supply of milk to the'condens ing p l a n t . : The pi ant c losed and d i d.not operate 24 aga in . In 1920 the F . V . M . P . A . es tab l ished an evaporated milk plant at De la i r near Abbotsford and leased i t to the P a c i f i c Mi lk Company for 25 a period of f i v e years . In September of 1924.the P a c i f i c Milk Company was bought out by the A s s o c i a t i o n . Because the de l ta s o i l s are a c i d , milk produced there is not as s u i t a b l e for the manufacture of condensed milk as milk produced in areas with less acid s o i l . In 1928 the Ladner 26 operat ion was closed and the equipment.moved to D e l a i r . Though the returns from the evaporated milk brought $15,000 more than butter or cheese would have, the return to the farmer dropped from 27 an average of 90 .9£ in 1919 to-85.'3C in 1920. In order to pay for the milk p lan t , dividends were issued jn stock and the deferred payment rose 28 from 3<i to 4 X <. Farm pr ices everywhere dropped from the war-time high in 1919 and farm surpluses began to accumulate. Condensed, evaporated and powdered milk began to p i l e up in warehouses as world demands f e l l o f f in the post-war years . In the spr ing of 1923, when surpluses had been absorbed, Park t r a v e l l e d to England and secured a contract for 100,000 29 cases of mi lk . This sa le reduced the s tock; i t enabled the Cooperative to pay o f f the bank loan in 1924 and to adopt an ambitious plan for extension of f a c i l i t i e s . At an extraordinary meeting held in New Westminster on October 3, 1924,. the members voted approval of a development plant which included not only the purchase of the P a c i f i c Mi lk Company, but a l s o the extension 30 of the Vancouver f a c i l i t i e s and the e rec t ion of a u t i l i t y p lan t . The u t i l i t y plant was b u i l t at Sardis and was in operat ion wi th in a year. Equipment from the Chi l l iwack Creamery was moved to the U t i l i t y P lant . Powdered milk was la ter added to the milk products. By owning i ts own manufacturing p l a n t , the A s s o c i a t i o n was able to use up . surplus mi 1k which c o u l d n o t be absorbed by the f l u i d market and gain a return from skim milk which had prev iously gone to waste. By p lac ing the manufacturing plants in the centra l and upper V a l l e y , the d i r e c t o r s were able to reduce the distance.mi 1k had to be t ranspor ted . This invest -ment in plants to quote an o f t - repeated phrase "held an umbrella over the whole i n d u s t r y . " Members of the Assoc ia t ion resented those who, by shipping independently, disposed of a l l the i r product at the f l u i d market p r i c e , whi le the Cooperative member accepted a pooled p r ice and paid for the f a c i l i t i e s which s t a b i l i z e d the f l u i d market. Strenuous e f f o r t s were made to persuade every farmer in the Va l ley to j o i n the A s s o c i a t i o n . When the Cooperative succeeded in r a i s i n g pr ices in the f i r s t two years of operat ion the membership rose to 90% to 35% of the producers. The group of farmers outs ide the Cooperat ive , however, enabled some dealers to remain independent of the F .V .M .P .A . Because a l l independent mi 1k was sold on the f l u i d market, the independent dealers could o f f e r a higher pr ice to the i r shippers than the pooled p r ice paid to Cooperative members. This was the hole in the dyke which could destroy the A s s o c i a t i o n . It became imperative to gain one hundred percent c o n t r o l . The dec is ion to go into the r e t a i l business had been made in . the hope that the buying of retai1 out le ts would reduce costs by prov id ing more e f f i c i e n t de l i ve ry methods, and a l s o force a l1 .producers to j o i n the Cooperative by e l im ina t ing independent dea le rs . Such r i g i d control proved impossible . New dealers went into business immediately .and lured members away from the Cooperative by o f f e r i n g pr ices which usual ly averaged 7<J per pound but te r fa t more than the Cooperative could pay. With th is development,.membership in the Cooperative d e c l i n e d . Many small shippers who remembered the hardships suf fered at the hands of dealers were not tempted away from the Cooperative by the higher pr ices paid by independent d e a l e r s . Large shippers who had invested considerable sums in bu i ld ing up pure-bred herds, and who maintained a steady year round p r o d u c t i o n f e l t .that a greater investment and a marked e f f i c i e n c y e n t i t l e d them to higher r e t u r n s . ' Though the F . V . M . P . A . secured improvements in the q u a l i t y standards of mi 1k produced by i ts members, i t was unable, with i ts "one man, one vote" p o l i c y , to have the membership accept resolut ions to i n s t i t u t e a plan by which the p r ice would be based on q u a l i t y . As the e f f o r t s of the F . V . M . P . A . s t a b i l i z e d the market, there was a tremendous increase in product ion. A larger surplus had to be handled. The U t i l i t y Plant at Sardis and the De la i r Condensary f u l f i l l e d th is funct ion admirably, but the Association.members who.had b u i l t the plants by invest ing $100 for every can of milk shipped - - no small sum — re-sented the fact that they had provided a s tab le f l u i d market for those who had not shared the cost of d ispos ing of the s u r p l u s . Large shippers f e l t that the Cooperative i t s e l f had created the surplus by accept ing a l l milk produced. They resented rece iv ing the same returns as shippers who milked grade c a t t l e for a few months of the year . Feel ings ran high and intense b i t te rness developed between independents and Assoc ia t ion members. Among those who l e f t the F .V .M .P .A . in the 19201s were the S t a r r s , the Shannons and Charles Evans, men who had helped to found the Cooperat ive. Because they were large shippers they were soon supplying 30% of the Vancouver market though they made up only 10% of the producers in the V a l l e y . F .V .M .P .A . members became resolute in the i r determi nat ion to e l iminate independents i 1ndependents. became adamant in the i r resolve to reta in the i r "earned" .pos i t ion on'.•the'• f l u i d • market. It would appear that the dec is ion to.engage in p r i c e - c u t t i n g was i n i t i a t e d by the F . V . M . P . A . , though some of the d i r e c t o r s a 1 so supported the p o l i c y . Park and Barrow argued against p r i c e - c u t t i n g for they rea l i zed that the Cooperat ive, car ry ing the burden of the s u r p l u s , could 31 n e v e r . s e l l low enough to force out the independent d e a l e r s . In 1921 the p r ice of milk dropped as low as 12 to 14 quarts for $1 before re-turning to 10$ per quart . The Cooperative members rea l i zed that in a p r ice war they would be ruined before the independents. Nevertheless, whenever, independent dealers cut pr ices the Cooperative a lways, fo l1 owed s u i t . In the spr ing of 1922 most of the dealers were persuaded by the F .V .M.P .A . d i r e c t o r s to pay the i r shippers the same p r i c e as the pooled return of the Cooperative and pay over to the Associ at-i on .the d i f f e r e n c e between that p r ice and the wholesale c i t y p r i c e . In return the Cooperat ive agreed to take care of a l l surplus milk and to supply any shortage the 32 dealers might have. This was an i d e a l . s o l u t i o n for the F .V .M .P .A . for the A s s o c i a t i o n was not so much interested in r e t a i l i n g milk as in equa l i z ing returns. But the agreement was s h o r t - l i v e d . Some of the dealers broke away; the arrangement was re-negot iated .on 1y to be broken again. Pr ice wars and propaganda were cont inued. The independents cut into the Cooperative membership. In 1923 E . G . Sherwood resigned a f te r f a i l i n g to persuade the major i ty of the d i r e c t o r s to increase h is s a l a r y . John W. Berry , who supported Sherwood's a p p l i c a t i o n , resigned from the presidency in p ro tes t . The issue at stake involved more than a quest ion of s a l a r y . Berry f e l t that the farmers should have as the i r manager a man experienced in bus iness , and that they should be wi11ing to:pay a sa la ry comparable to . tha t paid 33 ' . . . in other bus inesses . He supported Sherwood who was interested pr imar i ly in net p r o f i t s , and was therefore taking a p o s i t i o n c lose to that of some of the Cooperative members who had begun to ship independently. Berry retained his membership, but represented a group wi th in the A s s o c i a -t ion who b e l i e v e d , as did most of those who l e f t , that the p o l i c i e s of the Cooperative should favor the large and the e f f i c i e n t producer. Among the d i r e c t o r s were some who f e l t that the Cooperative had been formed pr imar i ly as an agency having the power to regulate the market. In order to obtain th is regulat ion i t had been necessary to go into business. The main aim of the F . V . M . P . A . , there fore , was to handle as high a volume of products as p o s s i b l e ; i t s i d e a l , to absorb a l l milk in the V a l l e y . High volume, they b e l i e v e d , would spread operat ing costs and return as large a share as poss ib le of the consumers' d o l l a r to the farmer. To reduce operat ing costs the pos i t ions of president and general manager were merged a f t e r Sherwood's r e s i g n a t i o n . Park accepted the dual p o s i t i o n and worked for the F .V .M .P .A . on a f u l l time b a s i s . The pos i t ions of wholesale and r e t a i l managers were done away with and separate accounting systems were conso l ida ted . The management asserted in the annual report for 1923 - that th is retrenchment p o l i c y resul ted in v a s t l y 3k greater operat ing e f f i c i e n c y . The major i ty of the members were s a t i s f i e d not only with th is p o l i c y , but a lso that they had a farmer rather than a businessman in the key p o s i t i o n in the i r A s s o c i a t i o n . One of the greatest achievements of the new management was the success of a.membership campaign. Park, with the help of the d i r e c t o r s , combed the Val ley and persuaded many farmers who had been lured away by the o f f e r s of independent dealers to return to the Cooperat ive. Many did and in 1924 the F .V .M .P .A . d i rectorate;was able to report that only 35 th i r teen members had l e f t to ship as independents. The execut ive began pub] icat ion in A p r i1, 1923 of a j o u r n a l . c a l l e d Bu t te r fa t . Through th is magazine members were kept informed of co-operat ive business and of developments•in a g r i c u l t u r a l methods and co-operat ive marketing. The p r i c e - c u t t i n g that went on during 1925 led to such ser ious losses in the ice-cream business that in 1926 the F . V . M . P . A . ice-cream operat ion was merged.with the Port 0' Van Ice-Cream Company, made up of the leading ice-cream manufacturers. The F .V .M .P .A . entered the company on the condi t ion that a l l raw products would be bought from the r . - 3 6 Cooperat ive. The success of th is operat ion.strengthened the conv ic t ion of the F .V .M.P .A . d i r e c t o r a t e that c o n t r o l l e d marketing could resu l t in savings to the producer without at the same time r a i s i n g the p r ice to the consumer. As more r e t a i l ou t le ts opened in Vancouver and the competit ion ,of the independents became keener, members o f . t h e Cooperative began to demand that equa l i za t ion of returns should be mandatory. One of the bas ic p r i n c i p l e s of cooperat ion is that membership should be open and vo luntary ; i t was i r o n i c that the members of the Fraser Va l ley Milk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n , a farmers' cooperat ive , should resort to compulsion. Va l ley farmers had cooperated to control marketing in order to make the greatest poss ib le gains from the i r investment. This determination to prosper was shared by dealers in Vancouver and by producer-vendors, men estab l ished on small holdings c lose to o r w i t h i n the c i t y l i m i t s who had es tab l ished milk routes. . The-success o f . t h e Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n in s t a b i l i z i n g the f l u i d market led to.expansion in the indust ry . Though, members.left the A s s o c i a t i o n , the membership increased s t e a d i l y as part - t ime and beginning farmers, assured a market, f locked into the A s s o c i a t i o n . This expansion of production increased the surplus which had to be manufactured and the lower pr ices for manufactured milk de-pressed the F .V .M .P .A . s e t t l i n g ra te . Large producers who bore the expense of maintaining a year round production f e l t j u s t i f i e d in deal ing d i r e c t l y with Vancouver r e t a i l d a i r i e s where large and steady producers were p r e f e r r e d . Thei r defect ion from the Cooperative and t h e i r success in capturing a large share of the f l u i d market fur ther depressed the F .V .M .P .A . s e t t l i n g rate . The success of the A s s o c i a t i o n in s t a b i l i z i n g the market was of less advantage to i t s members than to independents. The "Gold Rush" mental i ty which had been an important fac tor in br inging about cooperat ive a c t i o n , now led to enormous ". f r i ct i on as Cooperative members, independents and dealers struggled to gain the maximum advantage from the f l u i d market. IV COOPERATION The cooperat ive movement, the trade union movement and s o c i a l i s m a l l had roots in the ideas and work of the Welshman, Robert Owen. Owen's experirrients- at New Lanark persuaded him that man's l i f e and character were inf luenced by environment. His own attempts to improve the environment and to reform the factory system were based on p h i l a n -thropy and paternal ism and his e f f o r t s to e s t a b l i s h an Owenite community at New Harmony in the United States met with f a i l u r e . His idea that the new product ive power generated by the use of steam should be under a s o c i a l control based on cooperat ion , not compet i t ion, led to the b i r t h of both the cooperat ive movement and s o c i a l i s m . Though he may have developed the confidence and maturity of the B r i t i s h working c l a s s , 2 he became what G.D.H. Cole c a l l e d "a walking p r i n c i p l e . " New Harmony f a i l e d and the cooperat ives which became s u c c e s s f u l , were, in r e a l i t y , j o i n t stock companies. Far from being based on a new s o c i a l o rder , they enabled i n d u s t r i a l workers to gain some benef i t from the c a p i t a l i s t system whi le achieving protect ion from i ts abuses. The trade unions, which Owen saw as product ive bodies that could replace the state d i s s o l v e d . The fore-runners of the modern B r i t i s h trade.unions emerged from the m i l i t a n t c h a r t i s t movement. Like the successfu l consumer coopera t ives , the trade unions rejected the t a c t i c s of Owen. Members fought by means of the s t r i k e rather than through cooperat ion to secure the working man a bet ter p o s i t i o n in the c a p i t a l i s t system. The a g r i c u l t u r a l cooperat ives which developed in North America were b a s i c a l l y a means by which farmers, genera l ly of an independent and conservat ive nature, could re ta in a degree of independence as producers, but gain the advantages of amalgamation in a competi t ive business world through cooperat ive marketing. The discrepancy between the nature of some cooperat ives and the-p r i n c i p l e that s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s should be based on cooperation rather than competit ion troubled many advocates of the cooperat ive movement. J . P . Warbasse rejected a g r i c u l t u r a l marketing assoc ia t ions as true co -operat ives because they were "organized for the j o i n t marketing of commodities which have not been produced by cooperat ive assoc ia t ions but 3 by ind iv idua ls for pr ivate p r o f i t . " Fourteen years l a t e r , Professor Humphrey Michel 1 of McMaster Un ivers i ty posed a se r ies of questions which indicate that though he approved the success of a g r i c u l t u r a l coopera t ion , he was troubled by the fact that he could not see a cooperat ive common-wealth developing as a r e s u l t . If a federat ion o f cooperat ive o r g a n i -zat ions was to replace the c a p i t a l i s t system would th is be a form of s ta te s o c i a l i s m or would i t be Soviet ism or Fascism? A per t inent quest ion t h i s , when asked in 1937-To Professor James E. Boyle, supporters of the Warbasse point of view were "eager sou ls" who saw in cooperation "a v i s i o n s o f a new heaven and a new e a r t h . " Boyle was prepared to accept j o i n t marketing as a v a l i d form of cooperat ion, which to him was "a bus iness , not a r e l i g i o n . " " ' This was the view accepted by F . V . M . P . A . di r e c t o r s . No Henry Wise Wood with his b e l i e f in the pe r fec tab i1 i t y of man and in "Triumphant Democracy"^ emerged in the Fraser V a l l e y . W.C. Good's contention that the whole economic system denied "the fundamental basis of c i v i l i z a t i o n i t s e l f , v i z . the interdependence of men and n a t i o n s , " 7 had no appeal for Fraser Val ley farmers. For members of the Co-opera t ive , E.D. Barrow was spokesman and ph i losopher . He s a i d , "The future prosperi . ty?of the farmer depends la rge ly on h imse l f . He w i l l continue to produce as an ind iv idua l but he must market co-o p e r a t i v e l y . " ^ For the Rochdale p ioneers , who had very l imi ted p o l i t i c a l power, cooperat ive act ion brought freedom from e x p l o i t a t i o n by shop-keepers. The twenty-eight workingmen who took the i n i t i a t i v e to provide essen t ia l serv ices fo r themselves obtained a voice wi th in the i r own cooperat ive and recogni t ion of the p r i n c i p l e of "one man, one v o t e . " To the members of th is f i r s t successfu l consumers' cooperat ive , f ree ing themselves from oppressive economic c o n d i t i o n s , voluntary membership became an important p r i n c i p l e . The members of the Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n always adhered to the "one man, one vote" p o l i c y . It l a i d the basis fo r the A s s o c i a t i o n ' s greatest s t rength , the loya l ty and commitment of the members to the i r cooperat ive . The s t ruc ture of the A s s o c i a t i o n with i ts numerous loca ls allowed for more than equal power.in dec is ion-making; i t per -mitted the involvement of members in formulat ing and d i s c u s s i n g p o l i c i e s . D i rectors attended loca l meetings to expla in p o l i c y and answer questions before f i n a l dec is ions were made in general meetings. Matters which a f fected farmers at the local level were discussed in rural community h a l l s and act ion was obta ined. Requests for re - rou t ing of milk trucks were met unless there was a sound reason fo r not doing s o . Frequently the problems were discussed w.i thin the local and the compromi-ses fnade there. The farmer kept a jealous eye on his company's property and would report F .V .M .P .A . cans seen in an auct ion barn or s t a r t a campaign to have F .V .M .P .A . butter so ld in local stores i f he f a i l e d to see i t on d i s p l a y . Ideas o r i g i n a t e d with the members. H . J . Skipper , a member of the Dewdney-Deroche l o c a l , was responsible for suggesting the Memorial Fund which helped pay funeral expenses fo r members who had contr ibuted to the plan and J . J . McKimmon urged the manufacture of powdered mi lk . Tremendous demands were made on ear ly d i r e c t o r s . They not only c a r r i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the bus iness , but a lso l i s tened to gr ievances , answered independent's charges, canvassed the l o c a l s , and acted as pub l ic re la t ions m e n . ^ The year ly e l e c t i o n of d i r e c t o r s was fol lowed with as much in teres t as federal and p r o v i n c i a l contests and they were usua l ly ca r r ied on in the same way, with p o l l i n g s ta t ions es tab l ished in the same rural h a l l s . Four of the seven d i r e c t o r s were e lected each year , the three p o l l i n g the highest votes for two-year terms and the fourth for a one-year term. This meant that the e n t i r e board could be replaced in two years i f the members so wished. Frequently there were disputes between l o c a l s . For years Langley and Chi l l iwack disagreed over the pool ing of f r e i g h t . ^ There was disagreement 1 2 between farmers who had Hols te in herds and those who had J e r s e y s . The annual meetings were often what the Progress described as the "stormiest 13 assemblies in the Fraser V a l l e y . " The meetings may have been stormy, , but they were l i v e l y and there was tremendous involvement. A good deal of farmer f r u s t r a t i o n was a l layed in the Va l ley because the Cooperative af forded the milk producers an opportuni ty to p a r t i c i p a t e in p o l i c y dec is ions v i t a l l y important to them. The "one man, one vote" p o l i c y , however, along with the p o l i c y of open membership const i tu ted a weakness which independent producers and dealers constant ly c r i t i c i z e d . A large proport ion of the members wi th in the Cooperative farmed on a small s c a l e . Many of these producers were fea r fu l of measures which might reduce the i r returns or prevent the i r sh ipp ing . P o l i c i e s designed to improve the q u a l i t y of the product had to be implemented slowly because of t h e i r r es is tance . The d i r e c t o r s of the F . V . M . P . A . ca r r i ed on an educational campaign through the Cooperative j o u r n a l , B u t t e r f a t . With the support of progressive farmers they i n t r o -duced the use of the sediment d i s c which determined the c l e a n l i n e s s of the mi lk . This was mainly an educational device which gave information to the farmer, but did not penal ize him i f h is resu l ts were poor. It proved e f f e c t i v e in br inging about considerable improvement in q u a l i t y , 14 however. A f i e l d man, Dr. Damman, was employed to smooth out d i f f i c u l t -15 ies by expla in ing to farmers reasons for a poor sediment ra te , and C.B . K e l l y , a q u a l i f i e d b a c t e r i o l o g i s t , was employed to do tests at the Eighth Avenue plant where milk for c i t y consumption was r e c e i v e d . ^ In an Assoc ia t ion which admitted members f ree ly and allowed each man equal power in dec is ion-making, the support of the majori ty for progressive measures was not always easy to o b t a i n . In 1925 a motion that a plan be worked out whereby milk would be paid for according to grade was defeated, but the minor i ty secured an amendment proposing .that the A s s o c i a t i o n put on an educational campaign in preparat ion for the establishment of a system of payment according to g r a d e . ^ It was not u n t i l 1933 when the in tens ive competit ion of the depression per iod created the necessary pressure that 18 the majori ty supported such a system. This s t ruggle wi thin the A s s o c i a t i o n and the open membership which allowed anyone to join- the Cooperative without r e s t r i c t i o n became widely p u b l i c i z e d by independent dealers and producers. The fac t that the F .V .M.P .A . was the f i r s t dairy organizat ion in Canada to employ a b a c t e r i o l o g i s t in a qua l i t y control program was much less widely known. The d i r e c t o r s f e l t they had made great progress . They would have 18 welcomed p r o v i n c i a l regulat ion of q u a l i t y which would have e l iminated shippers who were an embarrassment to them. The Milk Inquiry of 1954 revealed that the barn inspect ion system, a p r o v i n c i a l government r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , though operat ing in other parts of B r i t i s h Columbia, had completely broken down in the Fraser V a l l e y . It would appear that the sporadic shipper and the i n e f f i c i e n t producer,-'-a burden on other Cooperative members, wielded power, not only wi th in the Cooperat ive , but a lso wi th in the p o l i t i c a l system. The "one man, one vote" p o l i c y always remained in e f f e c t wi th in the F . V . M . P . A . , but the p r i n c i p l e of voluntary membership was considerably modi f ied . The o r i g i n a l contract sighed by members of the F .V .M .P .A . in 1917 was a one-year agreement. It was replaced by a three-year contract which was in turn replaced by an agreement " f o r a continuous period u n t i l he sha l l r e t i r e absolute ly from the da i ry business in the lower mainland of B . C . , subject to c a n c e l l a t i o n by twelve months 19 n o t i c e . " There was some res is tance to th is binding c o n t r a c t , but d i s c u s s i o n and explanat ion by the d i r e c t o r s led most members to accept the necess i ty of making i t d i f f i c u l t to leave the A s s o c i a t i o n . ;On January 1, 1926, James Bennewith who had taken out a contract with the F . V . M . P . A . in 1921 began to ship to an independent dealer 20 because "he wanted the extra d o l l a r . " A dec is ion of the Supreme Court awarded the F . V . M . P . A . an in junct ion r e s t r a i n i n g Bennewith "from s e l l i n g or d e l i v e r i n g milk or cream otherwise than in accordance with an agreement 21 with the a s s o c i a t i o n . " Damages of 20<£ per pound but ter fa t of milk and cream were awarded to the F . V . M . P . A . Though the Cooperative had ins t i tu ted a binding contract in 1920, th is was the f i r s t attempt to enforce i ts terms. Members could s t i l l " f r e e l y and v o l u n t a r i l y " j o i n , the Cooperat ive , but once a contract was signed i t became v i r t u a l l y impossible for them to leave. This locked members into the A s s o c i a t i o n and was another move away from the p r i n c i p l e s of cooperat ion. It foreshadowed the dec is ion to c lose the membership complete ly , made during the depths of the depress ion . The Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n had organized not merely for the purpose of bargaining with c i t y dea le rs , but to form an agency which would s t a b i l i z e the f l u i d market by absorbing the surplus into manufacturing p l a n t s . This plan could only work to the f u l l advantage of cooperat ive members i f a l l producers in the Va l ley shared the burden of the s u r p l u s . Several groups remained independent of the Cooperat ive. Producer-vendors, many of whom were es tab l ished before the A s s o c i a t i o n went into bus iness , were of less concern to the Cooperative members than were independent d e a l e r s . Many of the producer-vendors were men who were s t a r t i n g , as had so many of the farmers themselves, with meagre resources . The high cost of land made large holdings beyond t h e i r reach. Most of them purchased three or four acres, wi th in the c i t y l i m i t s or farmed on the o u t s k i r t s of the c i t y . They faced the demands of winter d a i r y i n g , and usual ly maintained a high q u a l i t y of production in order to hold,customers on the milk routes they b u i l t up for themselves. They were indeed independents and contr ibuted l i t t l e to the support of the 23 independent d e a l e r s . It was the farmers who had broken away from the Cooperative in order to gain the higher pr ices obta inable on the f l u i d market who made poss ib le the surv iva l of the independent d e a l e r . F .V .M .P .A . members considered 2k these producers not independents but " s c a b s , " who took advantage of the s tab le market the Cooperative member provided and who had few problems with dealers because the Cooperative of fered an a l t e r n a t i v e and set standards in p r ice and serv ice which independent dealers were fo reed to .exceed. To Cooperative members who had accepted contracts binding them to the A s s o c i a t i o n un t i l ret i rement, the implementation of l e g i s l a t i o n which would compel the independents to share the returns from the f l u i d market was a log ica l and inev i tab le s tep . Dean F.M. Clement of the Faculty of A g r i c u l t u r e at The Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia f e l t that the farmer was " e n t i t l e d to the same r ights and p r i v i l e g e s as other ,25 business organizers of the country . 1 An e f f i c i e n t marketing system would put him into "a p o s i t i o n to render a large se rv ice to himself and 26 the consuming p u b l i c . " He saw the farmer's attempt to gain a pro-port ionate share on the high pr ice market as an evolut ionary economic 27 movement. The F .V .M .P .A . d i r e c t o r s agreed. They f e l t that government p o l i c i e s had of ten favored businessmen and they could see no reason for farmers to be denied an opportunity to adjust to a rap id ly i n d u s t r i a l i z i n g s o c i e t y . They saw the l e g i s l a t i o n they sought as "an advanced marketing 28 measure," which would cor rec t the i l l s of the marketing system. To the opponents of the F . V . M . P . A . , the l e g i s l a t i o n the Co-29 operat ive advocated was "compulsory o r ' s o c i a l i s t i c . " It s t ruck at the very heart of the " f ree en te rpr ise" system. Equa l i za t ion of returns would subs id ize the i n e f f i c i e n t and unprogressive producer at the expense of the shipper whose i n i t i a t i v e , greater investment and higher production costs e n t i t l e d him to a large share of the f l u i d market. To large shippers wi thin the Cooperat ive, th is was a compell ing argument. They had remained wi th in the Cooperat ive , however, in order to solve the problem of the s u r p l u s , which u n c o n t r o l l e d , destroyed the s t a b i l i t y of the f l u i d market. They were less concerned with the burden of the i n e f f i c i e n t producer than with fo rc ing a l l shippers to share the burden of the surp lus . They argued that in a democratic soc ie ty a d issent ing mi nor i ty should be obl iged to abide by the wish of the majori ty and be forced to support the .p lants which absorbed the surp lus . J.W. Winson supported the. F .V .M .P .A . -demands for l e g i s l a t i o n to equal ize re turns . "It would be no i n f r a c t i o n of that wonderful thing c a l l e d B r i t i s h j u s t i c e , " he s t a t e d , " i f every farmer in a d i s t r i c t was compelled to j o i n the organiza t ion which was marketing the commodity 30 he wished. to produce." But for many, even among those who accepted. the idea that c o -operat ion was "a business not a r e l i g i o n , " compulsory l e g i s l a t i o n was 31 " l e g a l l y i n d e f e n s i b l e , s o c i a l l y undesirable and economical ly unsound." George Keen, ed i to r of the Canadian Co-operator and general secretary of the Cooperative Union of Canada, f e l t that cooperat ion should "demonstrate i t s r ight to e x i s t upon i ts merits in r i v a l r y with the competi t ive i system." Cooperat ion , .he pointed out , only succeeded when i t re jected the paternal ism of Robert.Owen' and es tab l ished i t s e l f on the p r i n c i p l e of s e l f - h e l p and s e l f - r e l i a n c e . "In i ts essence ," he s a i d , ' ' there is no d i f f e r e n c e between the pr iva te paternal ism of p h i l a n t h r o p i s t s and 32 -state pa te rna l i sm." This was an idea with which John O l i v e r agreed. The fact that the arguments of both Winson and Keen were publ ished in But ter fa t is an ind ica t ion that a good deal of sou l -search ing went on wi th in the Co-operat ive and the p r i n c i p l e s bas ic to the formulat ion of p o l i c y were c l o s e l y examined. T h e i s s u e was argued not only wi th in the 33 A s s o c i a t i o n , . b u t a lso throughout the whole community. Other farmers faced the same d e c i s i o n . The f ru i t -growers of the Okanagan opted for compulsory l e g i s l a t i o n with a minor i ty group of independents opposed. The wheat-producers of the Canadian p r a i r i e s , whose ranks were d iv ided on the quest ion , were urged by Aaron Sap i ro , an -American who had worked with the h ighly successfu l f r u i t - g r o w e r s ' cooperat ives in C a l i f o r n i a , 34 to accept long term pool contracts and compulsory l e g i s l a t i o n . . The arguments against compu1sion :were s t r o n g , p a r t i c u l a r l y for farmers who accepted the basic competit iveness of the economic system. Men who had been motivated to form a cooperat ive by the i r des i re to pre-serve the i r individua 1 ity as producers; men who c la imed, as Barrow d i d , that cooperat ive marketing was a means of s e l f - h e l p , must sure ly have had some d i f f i c u l t y in re fu t ing the arguments of those who upheld the " f ree en te rp r i se" system. It was not , however, on the basis of arguments which would refute those of the independent producers that Cooperative members j u s t i f i e d the i r p o s i t i o n , but ra ther on the manner in which independents operated wi th in the free en te rpr ise system. The independent milk shippers who l e f t or refused .to j o i n the Co-operat ive soon found, as had so many.producers before 1917, that an indiv idual shipper was at a disadvantage on a competi t ive market. Independents. began to o r g a n i z e . i n the summer of 1925. Under the name 35 of the "Twin Ci ty Cooperative Milk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n , " they worked with the F .V .M .P .A . in order to obtain more s tab le pr ices throughout the year . The new organiza t ion attempted to sign up a l l the independent shippers in the V a l l e y . It ran into d i f f i c u l t i e s when Steeves Dairy obtained an in junct ion to prevent the A s s o c i a t i o n from i n t e r f e r i n g 37 . with the contract of supply of the Steeves Dai ry . The Supreme Court judgment which resul ted from the subsequent court case granted a perpetual r es t ra in ing in junct ion and stated that freedom of trade had been in ter fered with and the act ions of the a s s o c i a t i o n were not 38 j u s t i f i a b l e . This dec is ion set the precedent the Cooperative fol lowed by prosecut ing James Bennewith. The Twin C i ty organiza t ion went into l i q u i d a t i o n as a resu l t of the Steeves case. The need for united ac t ion was ev ident , however, and the independents were soon organized aga in , about two hundred s t r o n g , as the Independent Co-operat ive A s s o c i a t i o n . One of the i r ob jec t ives was to operate a large, d i s t r i b u t i n g plant in Vancouver in order to 39 reduce the overhead cost of handling the mi lk , but they had no intent ion of producing butter or cheese. They began rece iv ing milk in May, 1927, b u t . f a i l e d to s e l l the i r members' product on the f l u i d market and were forced to dispose of i t through the butter channel . The members had been promised, and were p a i d , f l u i d market pr ices so the A s s o c i a t i o n was in a very d i f f i c u l t p o s i t i o n f i n a n c i a l l y . The Vancouver Creamery, a subs id iary of P. Burns and Company L i m i t e d , . bought the p lant and bus iness . The members shipped to the Burns Creamery and to the Ci ty Dairy and Produce Company L i m i t e d , con t ro l l ed 41 by Vancouver alderman, H.E. Almond. Rumors spread that unfa i r p rac t ices on the part of the F .V .M .P .A . had been responsib le for the f a i l u r e of the Independent Co-operat ive Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n . Some F .V .M .P .A . members demanded an exp lanat ion . 73 Representatives of the Independent Assoc ia t ion 'were inv i ted to present the i r complaints at a meeting of the Dewdney-Deroche l o c a l . D i rectors of the F .V .M .P .A . were present to rep ly . The exp lanat ions , as -reported hi in B u t t e r f a t , made c lea r that independents who argued that compulsive l e g i s l a t i o n n u l l i f i e d the advantages of the f ree en te rpr ise system were themselves seeking protect ion from i ts opera t ion . They bel ieved in f ree enterpr ise when i t worked in t h e i r favor . In November, 1926, when the r e t a i l p r ice of milk rose from 11c to 13c per quar t , d i s t r i b u t o r s ' receipts rose from $4.40 per 40^gallon can to $5-20. Independent producers, however, received no increase in the $2.17 per can which they had been get t ing during the summer. A delegat ion of independents asked for a c i v i c inves t iga t ion into milk p r i c e s . At a meeting arranged by the Vancouver Ci ty C o u n c i l , E .G . Sherwood, who was at th is time propr ie tor of Sherwood Creameries, explained that the independent dealers could not make changes in payment un t i l they knew what the F .V .M .P .A . would p a y - f o r . t h e month as the contracts of the independents s p e c i f i e d a 7c per pound but te r fa t p r i c e over the hh F .V .M .P .A . s e t t l i n g ra te . In asking for the meeting, independent producers charged that the 67C per pound but ter fa t p r ice which they had been rece iv ing in comparison to the 60c F . V . M . P . A . s e t t l i n g rate was small compensation for the advantages of deferred payment and lower. ..f.r.ei.ght. .rates enj.oyed by the hS F . V . M . P . A . members. . D i rectors of the A s s o c i a t i o n informed the press that the Cooperative had received no cut rates from the ra i l roads but had reduced f re igh t costs because farmers shipped to the c l o s e s t ou t le ts 46 and the savings were d i s t r i b u t e d among members. It became increas ing ly ev ident • that the main purpose of the independents was to get a l l t h e i r milk on the f l u i d market without taking any r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the surplus in the V a l l e y . Cooperative members saw them as s o c i a l p a r a s i t e s . It was t h e i r act ions as s u c h , , not the i r arguments, which convinced members of the F .V .M .P .A . that they were j u s t i f i e d in demanding l e g i s l a t i o n which would make compulsory the equa l i za t ion of returns from the f l u i d market. L ike the Rochdale P ioneers , members of the Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n cooperated in order to gain advantages from the c a p i t a l i s t system and to .p ro tec t themselves from middle men. Both cooperat ives granted members the power to improve the i r economic p o s i t i o n through c o l l e c t i v e a c t i o n , and a sense of ind iv idua l worth through the opportunity to p a r t i c i p a t e in dec is ion-making. It was p o s s i b l e for consumers' cooperat ives to adhere to the p r i n c i p l e of voluntary member-s h i p . These o r g a n i z a t i o n s , once e s t a b l i s h e d , o f fered advantages to members which could not be gained wi thout- the cooperat ive . The milk producers of the Fraser Va l ley had found that . the operat ion of the f ree en te rpr ise system created chaot ic condi t ions on, the f l u i d market. They had cooperated in order to s t a b i l i z e that market. It was impossible to re ta in the advantages which resul ted from that act ion only fo r members wi th in the A s s o c i a t i o n . Determined that they should not be denied oppor tun i t ies they had made p o s s i b l e , members of the Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n supported l e g i s l a t i o n which would equa l i ze returns to the producers. V. COMPULSION i And so began the long s t ruggle to gain l e g i s l a t i o n which would provide equa l i za t ion of access to the f l u i d market. For almost t h i r t y years the members of the Cooperative worked to achieve a goal which was but an extension of the purpose for which the organiza t ion had f i r s t formed. The s t ruggle was complicated by the e f f ec ts of the depression and by bas ic fau l ts in the methods employed.to achieve e q u a l i z a t i o n . The farmers of the Fraser Va l ley were strugg1 ing with a regional problem but the story of that s t ruggle is a case study of some of the problems of Confederat ion , and the c o n f l i c t s and tensions wi th in the Va l ley can be seen as a microcosm of c o n f l i c t s and tensions among larger regions of the country. The process of a r r i v i n g at a workable s o l u t i o n to marketing problems in the Fraser Va l ley can be understood only i f i t is examined in r e l a t i o n to changing economic condi t ions in the country . It can be understood only i f there is some.recognit ion of the j u d i c i a r y ' s ro le in pol icy-making and responding to currents of thought wi th in s o c i e t y . It can be understood only i f i t is rea l i zed that there have been s a f e -guards as well as obstacles in ' the cumbersome process of de f in ing areas of p r o v i n c i a l and federal j u r i s d i c t i o n in a federal s t a t e . Just as these p r i n c i p l e s are basic to an understanding of the s t ruggle between pro-v i n c i a l and federal governments, and between French and Engl ish in Canada, so they apply to the s t ruggle between cooperat ive and independent producers in the f e r t i l e Fraser V a l l e y . The f ru i t -growers of the Okanagan, who had cooperated to s t a b i l i z e the market by central s e l l i n g and by bu i ld ing storage f a c i l i t i e s , were the f i r s t in B r i t i s h Columbia to seek l e g i s l a t i o n which would contro l marketing. In 1927 the Produce Marketing Act was drawn up to deal with the sa le of a l l a g r i c u l t u r a l production and to apply where a large major i ty of producers f a v o r e d . i t s implementation. E.D. Barrow, M in is te r of A g r i c u l t u r e in the John O l i v e r government, brought in the measure as a pr iva te member's b i l l . 1 Though most of the L i b e r a l s supported i t , the Premier did not agree with the p r i n c i p l e s o f the l e g i s l a t i o n and refused to vote for i t . The b i l l passed with l i t t l e t roub le , but a l as t minute move to include milk products under the prov is ions of the Act met with a h o s t i l e react ion and th is amendment was soundly defeated. Barrow was determined to provide the same r e l i e f for da i ry farmers as for f r u i t - g r o w e r s . The Dairy Farmers' Losses Red is t r ibu t ion B i l l , s i m i l a r in p r i n c i p l e to the Produce Marketing A c t , was drawn up ear ly in 1928. V io len t opposi t ion came aga in , as i t had in 1927, from c i t y members of the L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly, as well as from. Mayor Louis D. Tay lor of Vancouver and from members of h is C i ty C o u n c i l . The f ru i t -g rowers were s e l l i n g what was considered a " luxury" product ; , t h e i r main market lay on the Canadian p r a i r i e s . Vancouver:representat ives-were' wi11ing to support l e g i s l a t i o n to provide r e l i e f to the f r u i t - f a r m e r s or were i n d i f f e r e n t to the enactment of such measures. M i l k , however, was considered a n e c e s s i t y ; the da i ry farmers' main market was Vancouver. Producers and dealers who opposed c o n t r o l l e d marketing had no d i f f i -cu l ty in c rea t ing c i t y opposi t ion to . legis1 at ion designed . to equa l i ze returns to the producers. Proponents of the da i ry b i l l were he lp less before the type of propaganda used by those who opposed i t . Mayor Tay lor pledged that there would be no control " f o i s t e d on the c i t i z e n s of Vancouver" by the A s s o c i a t i o n , which "sought to c o n t r o l . t h e milk in the baby's 2 b o t t l e . " Samples of milk were sent to V i c t o r i a and placed in evidence. F . V . M . P . A . d i r e c t o r s protested to the Ci ty Council that A s s o c i a t i o n mi lk , which was in poor c o n d i t i o n , was ten days o ld and had not been 3 properly r e f r i g e r a t e d . The q u a l i t y control program i n s t i t u t e d by the F . V . M . P . A . had had considerable e f f e c t on the standard of milk shipped. As ear ly as the spr ing of 1925, tests made by Dr. F .T . U n d e r h i l l , c i t y health o f f i c e r , indicated that the q u a l i t y of milk suppl ied by the Cooperative was very h igh . D i r e c t o r s , o f the F .V .M .P .A . protested that no report from the C i ty Health Department had been placed in ev idence. Alderman Angus Mclnnis , ,the only member o f the Vancouver C i ty Council who did not oppose the l e g i s l a t i o n , pointed out that the issue involved was e q u a l i z a t i o n of re turns . The quest ion of q u a l i t y should not have been introduced into the c o n t r o v e r s y . M a y o r Tay lor retorted that the delegat ion from Vancouver had not raised the sub jec t . Questioned by Alderman Mclnn is , Dr. Underhi11 sa id that the b o t t l e s . o f milk from F . V . M . P . A . and independent d a i r i e s were shipped to V i c t o r i a at the request of the c i t y s o l i c i t o r . A s s o c i a t i o n members were even more embittered by the fact that Alderman H.E. Almond, who was sent to V i c t o r i a as a member of a Vancouver Ci ty Council delegat ion to p r o t e s t ' t h e l e g i s l a t i o n , was an independent milk d e a l e r , p ropr ie tor of the C i ty Dai ry . The F . V . M . P . A . , which had i ts own representat ives in the l e g i s l a t u r e , protested th is representat ion of dealer in teres ts in the c i v i c de lega t ion . Ci ty groups took sides in the dispute according to the i r view of the necess i ty of government c o n t r o l . Alderman Mc lnn is , though he had some reservat ions about the Fraser Va l ley Cooperat ive, supported the l e g i s l a t i o n i ts members were demanding, because he saw "organiza t ion for control of a l l commodities" as i n e v i t a b l e . 7 The Mi lk B i l l was unanimously supported by the Vancouver and New Westminster D i s t r i c t Trades and Labor C o u n c i l . Delegate B i r t Showier declared that the Cooperative was "based on union p r i n c i p l e s , " and opposi t ion to i t was "from vested 8 i n t e r e s t s . " The president of the Vancouver Board of Trade considered the part that group played in blocking the da i ry farmers' l e g i s l a t i o n in 9 1927 as one of the successes of the year . Most Vancouver consumers were probably more a f fec ted by Mayor T a y l o r ' s c o l o r f u l language and s t o r i e s of " rot ten milk" than by arguments about the necess i ty of government c o n t r o l . Many were probably more inf luenced by the views of the man who de l ivered the i r milk than by arguments in the l e g i s l a t u r e . W . J . Park attempted to quiet the i r f e a r s . "The proposed l e g i s l a t i o n is not for the purpose of fuxing milk p r i c e s , " he dec la red . "It is not concerned with the operat ions of the var ious milk d i s t r i b u t o r s in Vancouver and i t w i l l not a f f e c t the consumers of milk in any way whatever. It is a producers' p rob lem." 1 ^ Whatever merits the arguments of Cooperative members conta ined, the weakness of the i r case lay in the fact that the problem was viewed as one-r between producers. In asking for marketing l e g i s l a t i o n the farmers were moving away from " l a i s s e z f a i r e " p r i n c i p l e s to a c o l l e c t i v i s m the impl icat ions of which they did not f u l l y understand or accept . The fac t that they saw the i r problems in terms of competit ion between producers is an ind ica t ion that th is was so . A long s t ruggle lay .ahead; equa l i za t ion of the market could not be at ta ined un t i l there was wider acceptance of government control and a bet ter understanding of the means by which such control could be implemented in the pub l ic i n t e r e s t . Barrow's Mi lk B i l l was re ferred to the Select Standing Committee on A g r i c u l t u r e . The Committee recommended that an independent and complete inves t iga t ion be made into the milk industry . A Royal Commission headed by Dean F.M. Clement was appointed immediately. It submitted i ts report to the l e g i s l a t u r e on January 22, 1929- The Commission recommended "that the p r o d u c t i o nj . d i s t r i b u t ion and sa le of milk and cream for the f l u i d trade be treated as a pub l ic u t i l i t y , to be c l o s e l y regu l -ated and safeguarded in the in teres ts of the*pub l ic as a w h o l e . T h e p r i n c i p l e of equa l i za t ion was a l s o upheld. The Royal Commission recommend-ed that a Committee of D i rec t ion should be appointed. The task of th is committee would be to assess independent producers who had a d i s p r o p o r t i o n -ate share of the f l u i d market and use the i r cont r ibut ions to compensate Cooperative members who had s tab i1 i zed -the market. It was recommended J that the committee would use the F . V . M . P . A . ' s proport ions of the var ious markets and the F .V .M .P .A . s e t t l i n g rates as the basis from which to 1 2 c a l c u l a t e . In s p i t e of the brave words about safeguarding "the in teres ts of the pub l i c as a whole" th is method of equa l i za t ion was based on the assumption that the marketing d i f f i c u l t y was "a producers' problem" and that a l l producers belonged to two we l l -de f ined groups. ' Short ly before the recommendations of the Mi lk Inquiry Commission were made p u b l i c , the l e g a l i t y of the Produce Marketing Act was upheld by a d e c i s i o n of the B r i t i s h Columbia Court of Appeal . The v a l i d i t y of the Act had been questioned on the ground that i t was an attempt to regulate trade and commerce which is e x c l u s i v e l y wi th in the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the 1 3 dominion par l iament. The d e c i s i o n , made on January 8, 1929, upheld the l e g a l i t y of the Act on the ground that i t concerned property and c i v i l r ights and could not lose that character whether the produce shipped was contracted for wi th in or without the prov ince . This d e c i s i o n , coupled with the recommendations of the Milk Inquiry Report, strengthened the members.of the F .V .M .P .A . in the i r demands fo r l e g i s l a t i o n which would equal ize returns to dairymen. The Royal Commission es tab l ished to inquire i n t o t h e mi 1k industry had been appointed by the L ibera l government but the report was submitted to a Conservative government, Dr. S . F . Tolmie had succeeded Dr. J . D . McLean as premier and Wil l iam Atk inson , who had defeated Barrow in C h i l l i w a c k , . was Min is te r of A g r i c u l t u r e . J.W. Berry, Conservative member from Langley, as chairman of the House A g r i c u l t u r a l Committee, was responsible for introducing the Dairy Sales Adjustment B11.-1 in March, 1929. Most, of the L i b e r a l s in opposi t ion supported his b i l l , but the issue d iv ided the Conservat ive par ty . Renewed opposi t ion from independent dealers and from Vancouver C i ty Council members led to compromise on the part of the F . V . M . P . A . In reply to charges that they were seeking power and that such power would be dangerous to the consumer, the d i r e c t o r s assured members of the L e g i s l a t u r e that they would guarantee that the p r i c e of milk would not r i s e for f i v e y e a r s . 1 ^ The Act would become operat ive only i f 66% of the persons present at a 16 pub l ic meeting voted to submit a p e t i t i o n to .have i t implemented. Assurances were given that the F .V .M .P .A . would not p e t i t i o n the government for at least one year , and that during that time the Cooperative would make every e f f o r t to negotiate with independents. Soon a f t e r the l e g i s l a t i o n was passed, the F .V .M.P .A . d i r e c t o r s met with a group of independent d i s t r i b u t o r s inc luding the Burns in teres ts to negotiate an agreement . 1 7 Meetings were held throughout the V a l l e y . An overwhelming majori ty of Cooperative members and a majori ty of the independents, reorganized as the Independent Milk Shippers ' A s s o c i a t i o n , voted in favor of p e t i t i o n i n g the government to implement the Dairy Products Sales Adjustment Act immediately. The F .V .M .P .A . e lec ted A . H . Mercer as the i r representat ive on the Milk Board set up under the prov is ions of the A c t . The independents chose Samuel H. Shannon. Charles A. Welsh of New Westminster, a choice acceptable to both groups, was appointed chairman. The nature of the Mi lk Board with i ts represent-a t ive funct ion r e f l e c t e d the assumption that the complexi t ies of milk marketing could be handled by a process of negot ia t ion between two groups of producers. It soon became evident that production was not confined to farmers in the Va l ley who shipped e i ther to the Cooperative or to an independent dea ler . Producers of preferred raw and c e r t i f i e d milk were allowed to seek exemption from the A c t . In the main th is p rov is ion protected producer-vendors, but Jersey breeders of the Fraser Va l ley a l s o asked fo r exemption from the Milk Act because they claimed there was a strong p u b l i c demand for the i r product and they wished to preserve the i r ident i ty Members of the B .C . Jersey Ca t t l e Club were granted the r ight to re ta in the i r membership in the F .V .M .P .A . though they shipped to Spencer 's 18 Da i r ies which sold a spec ia l milk s t r i c t l y from purebred herds. In 1931 when they discovered that the i r returns were pooled, the Jersey Breeders es tab l ished the i r own cooperat ive . Mi lk contro l came into e f f e c t on January 1 , 1 9 3 0 . An agreement had been signed by the F .V .M.P .A . and independent d a i r i e s which s e t t l e d the wholesale pr ices and guaranteed that the r e t a i l p r ice of milk would not 19 be ra ised from 9 quarts for $1 for f i v e years . By May 35% of the producers had complied with Milk Board o rders . C o l l e c t i o n s were made and adjustment cheques sent out . Shippers bore equal ly the burden of the surplus and each was granted a proport ionate share of f l u i d market p r i c e s . The Milk Board report issued by C.A.' Welsh in December, 1930 showed that in s p i t e of an increase in production of almost 600,000 pounds 21 of b u t t e r f a t , the average s e t t l i n g rate for 85% of the da i ry farmers had increased from 57•77c dur ing . the f i r s t nine months of 1929 to 66c 22 for the same period in 1930. A comparison of pr ices for nine Canadian and f i v e American c i t i e s showed the r e t a i l p r ice of milk to be lower in Vancouver than in any c i t y except London, Ontar io and the spread between producer and consumer pr ice in Vancouver to be the smal lest of the four -23 teen c i t i e s . There is l i t t l e doubt that Cooperative members had good reason to be s a t i s f i e d with the e f f ec ts of the l e g i s l a t i o n . In a world plunged into depress ion , they inhabited an is land of r e l a t i v e economic s t a b i l i t y . For them th is was a golden per iod long to be remembered. Independent producers who were sharing the burden, not only of an increased surp lus , but a lso of an average reduction of 8$ per pound in the p r ice of but te r , were very d i s s a t i s f i e d . Small dairymen s e l l i n g milk produced on the i r own premises in North Vancouver and Burnaby as well as wi th in Vancouver and on the o u t s k i r t s f e l t most insecure . They began to o f f e r "preferred raw" milk in order to remain exempt from the e q u a l i z a t i o n l e v i e s . Before implementation of the Act only three d a i r i e s had so ld a 2k high qua l i t y product in th is category. Members of the Ci ty Health Department became concerned about the q u a l i t y of the milk suppl ied to the c i t y by the "scores of d a i r i e s " suddenly o f f e r i n g "prefer red raw" in 25 order " to stay outs ide the scope of the a c t . " Dr. Underhi l l suggested to the p r o v i n c i a l government that amendments of the milk regulat ions should be made in order to ensure a safe milk supply . Raw milk producers protested th is t ightening of regu la t ions . Thei r lawyers stated that Dr. Underhi l l was."p lay ing into the hands of the Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' Assoc ia t ion and would put the independent milk producers out of b u s i n e s s . " 2 ^ The response of C i ty Council members to th is representat ion was fa r from unanimous. Alderman George C. M i l l e r sympathized with the small producer and expressed fear that the "b ig companies" would force them out of bus iness . Alderman R.N. Fraser expressed more concern about the q u a l i t y of the milk and supported s t r i c t e r regu la t ion . Dr. Underhi l l had been st rongly supported by J . F . C . B . Vance, c i t y a n a l y s t . Both declared that 27 they had been able to prevent epidemics by prompt a c t i o n . Alderman Angus Mclnnis was c r i t i c a l of the manner in which the act ion had been taken. The recommendation of the medical health o f f i c e r and the Council committee 28 had not been submitted to the C i ty C o u n c i l . He deplored the tendency "to go round corners to obtain l e g i s l a t i o n " and demanded that f u l l 29 p u b l i c i t y be given e f f o r t s to control the milk supply . This mixed react ion r e f l e c t s the weaknesses in the methods of imple-menting control over the f l u i d milk market. The Milk B i l l of 1927 had been passed to ensure regulat ion of milk q u a l i t y . It was separate from the Dairy Products Act which had become a tool to protect one group of producers L e g i s l a t i o n to equal ize the market would not work s u c c e s s f u l l y un t i l i t was comprehensive enough to protect the in terests of a l l groups and un t i l the adminis t ra t ion of the Act was i m p a r t i a l . In s p i t e of the unrest of independent producers and producer-vendors, F . V . M . P . A . Members had reason to feel secure when the v a l i d i t y of the Produce Marketing Act was again aff irmed in 1930 by a B r i t i s h Columbia cour t . This Act which had already withstood attack on the ground that i t in ter fered with trade and commerce, which is wi th in the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the dominion par l iament , was now challenged on a d i f f e r e n t po in t . A . O . Lawson, an independent f ru i t -g rower , asked for a dec la ra t ion that the Produce Marketing Act was u l t r a vi res the province of B r i t i s h Columbia because the lev ies imposed by the In ter ior Tree F r u i t and Vegetable Committee were i n d i r e c t taxes. On March 11, 1930, Mr. J u s t i c e Denis Murphy aff i rmed the v a l i d i t y of the Act on the ground that the lev ies were not raised for publ ic or governmental purposes, but were for the purpose of defraying the cost of operat ion and were used to provide s e r v i c e s . ^ Though there were d i f fe rences in the two pieces of l e g i s -l a t i o n , the Produce Marketing Act and the Dairy Sales Adjustment Act were based on s i m i l a r p r i n c i p l e s . When the v a l i d i t y of one act was questioned the resu l t strengthened or jeopardized the p o s i t i o n of those working under the prov is ions of the o ther . The Produce Marketing Act had twice been declared v a l i d by B r i t i s h Columbia cour ts . The Milk Board members, there fore , f e l t reasonably ce r ta in that they could impose orders and be upheld by law. Prosecution of four farmers who refused- to submit to the order of the Lower Mainland Dairy Products Sales Adjustment Committee was begun. The cases , however, were thrown out of court on a t e c h n i c a l i t y . "Lower Mainland" had been omitted 31 from not ices and warnings. .The v a l i d i t y of the Dairy Products Act was not in ques t ion , but th is f a i l u r e to enforce the prov is ions of the Act was an ominous warning that res is tance to the l e g i s l a t i o n would eventual ly render i t inopera t ive . The independents who had res is ted the Milk Board now began to attack i t . In June, 1930 proceedings to unseat Samuel H. Shannon, choice of the independents, from his pos i t ion on the Board were i n s t i t u t e d by James Whittaker on the ground that unqua l i f i ed voters had taken part in 32 , the e l e c t i o n . This attempt was unsuccess fu l . Mr. J u s t i c e M.A. Macdonald 33 held that the meeting which e lec ted Shannon was properly c o n s t i t u t e d . When Shannon's term of o f f i c e was near exp i ra t ion at the end of 1930, Fraser Va l ley independent producers refused to appoint a member to the milk control committee. They a l s o s tar ted a p e t i t i o n to have the Act repealed. The Mi lk Board c a r r i e d on with two members, Welsh and Mercer. In face of th is determined o p p o s i t i o n , the p r o v i n c i a l government l e f t the issue e n t i r e l y to the farmers and any prosecutions to be launched to the 35 Lower Mainland Dairy Products Sales Adjustment Committee.-.In August, 1930 eleven d a i r i e s in Vancouver, represent ing Sk% of of. the r e t a i l o u t l e t s , amalgamated to form the Associated D a i r i e s . W.J. Park became General Manager. He explained that the merger was an attempt to cut down d i s t r i b u t i n g c o s t s . The p r ice of dairy land was 80% to 100% higher in the Val ley than in other parts of Canada. C lear ing and dra in ing costs added to c a p i t a l . r e q u i r e d . The cost of labor , higher than in the eas t , and the higher f re igh t charges on feeds which had to be 37 imported long distances kept up the cost of product ion . This ac t ion undoubtedly e f fected temporary savings by e l imina t ing over lapping milk routes. E l iminat ion of competit ion in 1930 as in 1919, however, was no guarantee against new competit ion emerging. The formation of the Associa ted Da i r ies created tremendous b i t t e r n e s s . W.L. Macken, president of the F .V .M .P .A . from 1935 to 19^7, in looking back over those years , f e l t that i f th is move had not been made, "the loss sustained through 1 i t igat i o n , . v a r i o u s trade prac t ices and adverse 38 p u b l i c i t y would never have been s u f f e r e d . " Plants and equipment of those enter ing the merger were appraised and the companies were paid in IX preferred s tock . Common stock and p r o f i t s were based on gal lonage of 39 milk handled by the var ious in terests enter ing the merger. This business move was harshly c r i t i c i z e d by independents, especia l1y when Macken admitted that a "pret ty s t i f f " p r ice had been paid for one of the p l a n t s . ^ Because there was no p rov is ion for the f i x i n g of p r ices under the Dairy Sales Adjustment A c t , contracts were negotiated i n d i v i d u a l l y , The Fraser Val ley Milk Producers' Assoc ia t ion obtained a contract to s e l l 41 f l u i d milk at 73C per pound b u t t e r f a t . Some independent producers who had been shipping ' t o . d a i r i e s which went into the merger complained that the i r contracts were sold as i f they had been s l a v e s . Then the "combine" 42 had signed them up at a lower p r i c e . Though the surplus which had to be d iver ted into manufactured products was a burden, a c e r t a i n ' s u r p l u s was always necessary in order to ensure that f l u i d market requirements be met. Independent cooperat ives kept the i r surplus as low as p o s s i b l e . Independent dealers expected to be able to buy milk from the Cooperative i f they required i t . A f te r the formation of the merger; the F . V . M . P . A . sold accommodation milk only to the ou t le ts a f f i l i a t e d in the Associated D a i r i e s . Th is created b i t t e r n e s s . Independent d e a l e r s , who to a large extent b u i l t up the i r custom in Vancouver by decrying the q u a l i t y of the Assoc ia t ion mi lk , were only too anxious to.have i t during periods of shortage. There were continuous complaints' throughout th is period about the s i z e of the lev ies against . independent producers. Milk product ion'which increased considerably during the ear ly 1930 1s and lower pr ices for manufactured dai ry products because of f i e r c e competit ion on world markets were factors responsible for making the lev ies heavier than had been an t ic ipa ted . ' Independents a lso complained b i t t e r l y that " C " grade shippers to the Cooperat ive , though not e l i g i b l e to ship milk for c i t y consumption', were rece iv ing a bonus taken from the "A" and "B" 43 grade shipper l i a b l e for e q u a l i z a t i o n . i i The protest against control gained momentum with the p u b l i c a t i o n ear ly in 1931 of the report of a Royal Commission inves t iga t ing problems connected with the production and d i s t r i b u t i o n of B r i t i s h Columbia f r u i t s . The Commissioner," W. Sanford Evans, analyz ing the factors involved in the s t ruggle between the cooperat ive and independent f ru i t -growers in the Okanagan, saw the choice as being between two p r i n c i p l e s - - • " c e n t r a l i z a t i o n by s ta tutory enactment, or freedom of ac t ion wi th in the general laws of the l a n d . " Evans f e l t that i t would be unwise to choose compulsory l e g i s l a t i o n and advised against i t . The recommendations of the Evans Report were a complete reversal of those of the Clement Invest iga t ion . This con t rad ic t ion cannot be ex-pla ined in terms of d i f fe rences in the f r u i t and milk industry for the problems were s i m i l a r in most respects . F.M. Clement who headed the Milk Inquiry was Dean of the Faculty of A g r i c u l t u r e at The Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia. He had focused his career on encouraging the development of e f f i c i e n t and s c i e n t i f i c a g r i c u l t u r e . Wi l l iam Sanford Evans did not come from the academic wor ld . He represented Winnipeg as a Conservat ive member of the Manitoba l e g i s l a t u r e and was propr ie tor of the Sanford Evans S t a t i s t i c a l S e r v i c e s . He had been a j o u r n a l i s t , e d i t o r , broker and investment dealer and was the author of .The Canadian Contingents and 45 Canadian Imperial ism. Wheat-producers and f ru i t -growers depended on d is tant markets; both groups saw the i r markets vanishing as a - r e s u l t of the depress ion . Evans had obviously been chosen to invest igate the f r u i t industry because of his knowledge of the problems of p r a i r i e g r a i n -producers. It may be poss ib le to see d i f fe rences between the two men who headed the Commissions, but i t is much more l i k e l y that the tremendous economic changes • in the two-year per iod between the pub l i ca t ion of the reports provides a more s a t i s f a c t o r y explanat ion fo r the changing t ide of o p i n i o n . Clement was appointed in 1928, when pr ices were r i s i n g and markets expanding, by a M in is te r of A g r i c u l t u r e who had a c l e a r and d e f i n i t e p o l i c y and the support of the majori ty of his party members. Evans was appointed during a period when vanishing markets and reduced returns were creat ing ruinous compet i t ion. He was se lected by a Min is ter of A g r i c u l t u r e who had no c l e a r p o l i c y . The f ru i t -growers had l i t t l e strong representat ion in the l e g i s l a t u r e , but were re ly ing on paid counsel to frame acceptable l e g i s l a t i o n . J.W. Berry had.become the spokesman for the dairy farmers, but he had l i t t l e support wi th in h is own par ty . As president of the F . V . M . P . A . , Berry had been aggressive and determined to b u i l d the Cooperative into apower fu l and e f f i c i e n t bus iness . His sponsorship of the Mi lk B i l l may have lent credence to the fears of independents that l e g i s l a t i o n would create a monopoly which would crush "the 1i t t l e man." The pub 1 icat ion of the Sanford Evans Report marked a turning point in the s t ruggle for marketing l e g i s l a t i o n . From 1931 u n t i l 1937 measures requested by a major i ty of farmers, made law through the l e g i s l a t i v e process , were challenged by minor i ty groups and found i n v a l i d by•the courts There has been a great deal of d iscuss ion in Canada about the ro le of the courts in reso lv ing conf1 i c ts wi th in the s t a t e . Decisions made by the J u d i c i a l Committee of the Pr ivy C o u n c i l , un t i l 19^9 the highest court • 4 6 of appeal , have been severe ly c r i t i c i z e d for the damage they i n f l i c t e d on a c e n t r a l i z e d federal system by bu i ld ing up p r o v i n c i a l power and for the ro le they played in favor ing a system of f ree en te rpr ise by i n v a l i d a t i n g regulatory l e g i s l a t i o n . An examination of the s t ruggle waged by da i ry farmers in the Fraser Va l ley over marketing l e g i s l a t i o n may serve to i l l u s t r a t e the e f f e c t of j u d i c i a l dec is ions on the economy and the soc ie ty of a s p e c i f i c area; a cons idera t ion of some of the arguments in the long controversy over the role of the j u d i c i a r y may make c lea r some of the fac tors which made poss ib le the development of acceptable methods of market control in the da i ry industry . As a soc ie ty develops and customs harden into a body of law, there must a lso evolve means by which the laws may be adapted to meet the changing needs of the s o c i e t y . ..The long st ruggle between king and parliament in B r i t a i n resul ted in the development of a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l monarchy in which parliament is sovere ign . J . R . Mai lory has pointed out that "the fact of-par1 iamentary sovereignty has given the B r i t i s h c o n s t i t u t i o n a f l e x i b i l i t y which has enabled i t to serve the changing hi needs of d i f f e r e n t pe r iods . . . " The Canadian federal system with i t s d i v i s i o n of pari iamentary authbr i ty and two sets of sovereign bod ies , 48 "each sovereign in i t s own sphere ," has depended on the courts to def ine the powers of the l e g i s l a t u r e which have lost sovere ignty . When in Canada there has been res is tance to l e g i s l a t i o n demanded by a major i ty , the minor i ty has made that res is tance f e l t by chal lenging the author i ty of the l e g i s l a t u r e which enacted i t . During the ear ly years of Confederation p r o v i n c i a l par l iaments, which John A. Macdonald had en-49 v is ioned as mere "guarantees fo r local i n s t i t u t i o n s and for loca l laws," b u i l t up the i r power and had that power aff irmed by dec is ions of the J u d i c i a l Committee of the Privy C o u n c i l . It was the p r o v i n c i a l parliament which passed marketing l e g i s l a t i o n demanded by a majori ty of B r i t i s h Columbia farmers. It was p r o v i n c i a l courts which upheld the v a l i d i t y of the Produce Marketing Act by a f f i rming the r ight of the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s -lature to enact the l e g i s l a t i o n . That d e c i s i o n was not f i n a l , however, for the d issenters had recourse to the other '-'sovereign body." A . O . Lawson, the independent f r u i t - g r o w e r , who had attempted to have the Produce Marketing Act declared i n v a l i d in the Supreme Court of B r i t i s h Columbia on the ground that the province had no r ight to levy ind i rec t taxes, now ca r r i ed his . case to the Supreme Court of Canada. Here the Act was disputed not only on th is p o i n t , but a lso on- the r ight of the province to regulate trade and commerce. Chief J u s t i c e Lyman Duff de l ivered the judgment on February 16, 1931. The Supreme Court reversed the dec is ions of the B r i t i s h Columbia c o u r t s , holding the l e g i s l a t i o n to be u l t r a vi res the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e because "the purpose of the Produce Marketing A c t , 1926-7 ( B . C . ) , in confer r ing powers upon the Committee to d i c t a t e routes of s h i p p i n g , termini to which shipment may be made, quant i t i es which may be shipped to each p o i n t , r e f e r r i n g to s h i p -ments beyond the Prov ince , is to assume control over trade and regulate the producers as traders and s h i p p e r s . " " ^ Because the lev ies imposed by the Committee increased the p r ice of the product so ld outs ide the province imposing them, the Chief J u s t i c e found such lev ies to be . taxes . The l e v i e s , judged to be ind i rec t t axa t ion , were therefore u l t r a v i r e s the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e . " ^ As the long process of developing marketing l e g i s l a t i o n and tes t ing i t in the courts went on, i t was th is judgment which had to be checked and 52 reversed. It has been considered "a bad d e c i s i o n , " and a d e c i s i o n which es tab l ished a precedent judges were la ter forced to fo l low. This l i n e of reasoning is based on the assumption that j u d i c i a l dec is ions are c ircumscribed by precedent. It ignores the c rea t i ve ro le of the j u d i c i a r y and denies the fact that j u d i c i a l dec is ions can be inf luenced by s o c i a l f o r c e s . There has been detected in Pr ivy Council d e c i s i o n s , a bias in favor of the r ights of i n d i v i d u a l s , whether they be independent producers r e s i s t i n g group act ion or provinces within a f edera t ion . It is sure ly not without s i g n i f i c a n c e , however, that the Duff d e c i s i o n , made by Canadian Supreme Court judges, was pronounced a month a f te r the p u b l i c a t i o n of the Sanford Evans Report during a per iod when increas ing ly competi t ive condi t ions made regulatory l e g i s l a t i o n i n t o l e r a b l e to a growing number of people. A j u d i c i a l dec is ion respect ing the author i ty of the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e rendered i n v a l i d l e g i s l a t i o n which had never been completely implemented. With the benef i t of h indsight i t is poss ib le to see that i t was the Duff d e c i s i o n which had to be reversed before s a t i s f a c t o r y marketing control could be e s t a b l i s h e d . It is impossible not to specu la te , however, that a d i f f e r e n t j u d i c i a l dec is ion made in 1931 could have aff irmed the v a l i d i t y of a law which the e d i t o r of the Columb ian predicted would become as impossible of enforcement as p r o h i b i t i o n in the United States i f i t s opponents were 53 not "converted to a b e l i e f in i ts benef icence ." The minor i ty had triumphed, but the majori ty of the farmers in the province were dismayed by the d e c i s i o n . Attempts were made to ensure some c o n t r o l . The B .C . F r u i t Growers' A s s o c i a t i o n presented a piece of l e g i s l a t i o n to the A g r i c u l t u r a l Committee provid ing for the compulsory s e l l i n g of f r u i t and cer ta in vegetables , but avoiding features of the Act which had been declared i n v a l i d . Amendments to the Mi lk Act were drawn -up in the hope that the l e g i s l a t i o n would be int ra v i res the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e . The desperat ion with which these changes were made and the fact that most adjustments were to exempt groups from the operat ion of the Act is an ind ica t ion that the assumption that independent producers could be forced to share f l u i d market returns equal ly with cooperat ive members through compulsive l e g i s l a t i o n was a naive one. Both the new l e g i s l a t i o n and the Milk Act amendments, brought in by p r iva te members, , were ruled out of order by the speaker on the ground that p o l i c y was being forced on the government. Though the milk industry, did not come under the prov is ions of the Produce Marketing A c t , the p r i n c i p l e s of the Dairy Products Act were so s i m i l a r that the Lower Mainland Products Sales Adjustment Committee dropped i ts plans to prosecute W.A. Hayward who had refused to pay adjustment l e v i e s . E f f o r t s to amend the Act were cont inued. F i n a l l y some minor changes were secured. The F .V .M .P .A . agreed to.pay the costs of re fe r r ing the l e g i s l a t i o n to the J u d i c i a l Committee of the Pr ivy C o u n c i l . The uncerta inty about the fa te of the Act was one of the fac tors cont r ibu t ing to the d i s r u p t i o n of the milk market in May, 1931.. •. But other factors were veven more important. As a resu l t of a mild winter and ear ly s p r i n g , cows were pastured on good grass sooner in the year than was u s u a l . Sporadic sh ippers , she l tered wi th in the F . V . M . P . A . , increased the i r milk production as jobs in sawmills and lumber camps became 55 scarce . The p r i c e of milk on the f l u i d market was r e l a t i v e l y i n e l a s t i c . Increased mi 1k product ion meant greater dependence on returns from manufact-ured products . This in turn meant greater dependence on world markets where f i e r c e competit ion forced down p r i c e s . American t a r i f f s cut o f f some export markets. C a n a d i a n . t a r i f f s of fered l i t t l e r e l i e f to Fraser ,. Va l ley farmers faced with competit ion from other parts of the Common-wealth and of Canada. Butter from New Zealand, where production costs were lower, and from A l b e r t a , where wheat farmers had turned to d a i r y i n g , af forded competit ion not only on world markets but even on loca l markets. ' ' ' ' The F .V .M .P .A . fo l lowed. the p r a c t i c e of paying farmers an advance in the middle of the month. A f te r the s e t t l i n g rate was determined, i • • > a second cheque sent ear ly the fo l lowing month covered the balance of the farmers' re turns . In ear ly June, 1931, many of the A s s o c i a t i o n members received a debi t not ice in place of a cheque. The depression struck the Fraser Va l ley as.suddenly as the stock market had crashed in New York almost two years before. . Desperate e f f o r t s were made to re ta in control of milk market ing. The Lower Mainland Dairy Products Sales Adjustment Committee brought a t e s t , c a s e against Crysta l D a i r y . ^ Thei r counse l , R.L. Mai t land, .argued that the Milk Act d i f f e r e d from the Produce Marketing Act in that the Committee kept no one ou t .o f the f l u i d market and had no control over p r i c e s . The l evy , he argued, was paid by producers for serv ices rendered . ' ' 7 Mr. J u s t i c e D. Murphy, however, dismissed the ac t ion on September 26, 1931, ho id ing , on the author i ty of the Supreme Court d e c i s i o n , that the lev ies were ind i rec t taxa t ion . Murphy, was the same judge who had upheld the v a l i d i t y of- the Produce Marketing Act l i t t l e more than a year before . He was, of course , bound by the D u f f . d e c i s i o n but in d e l i v e r i n g judgment, he s t a t e d , "The true p i th and substance of th is l e g i s l a t i o n i s , in my o p i n i o n , to prevent the operat ion of th is economic law (that pr ice is regulated by supply and demand) by. e l im ina t ing competit ion thus lessening supply and thereby creat ing a monopoly market." It would appear that though Murphy's dec is ion was d ic ta ted b y . j u d i c i a l precedent, h is change of opin ion was genuine, e f fected by depressed economic c o n d i t i o n s . The Milk Board was appointed for another year , operat ing with only two members, as the independents refused again to appoint a representat ive The majori ty of producers conformed to i t s r u l i n g , but the Board members were in a d i f f i c u l t p o s i t i o n as the test case moved through the c o u r t s . The dec is ion brought down by' the Court of Appeal on January 5,' 1932 upheld the Murphy d e c i s i o n . Mr. J u s t i c e M.A. Macdonald of the Appeal Court Bench dissented in part from the judgment, however, and issued a minor i ty judgment, to that e f f e c t . ^ Again i t would appear that the th inking of the judges was inf luenced by the extreme economic depress ion . "This l e g i s l a t i o n looks communistic"to me," was a comment made by Mr. J u s t i c e A . E . MacPhi l l ips to the counsel f o r . t h e Milk B o a r d . ^ Never-theless he was not unaware that the l e g i s l a t i o n was considered to be necessary by a major i ty of the milk producers. He declared la te r that though he f e l t much doubt about the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of the Dairy Products Sales Adjustment A c t , he hoped the case would be car r ied to a higher cour t . "In a country as large as Canada," he s a i d , "with the varying condi t ions e x i s t i n g many matters are of a local and pr iva te nature and v i t a l to the community, and i t is conceivable that we have here l e g i s l a t i o n which is p e c u l i a r l y necessary and that there should be l e g i s -62 l a t ion such as th is chal lenged a c t . " Ten months l a t e r , on November 10, 1932, the J u d i c i a l Committee of the Pr ivy C o u n c i l , fo l lowing the p r i n c i p l e s l a id down by Chief J u s t i c e Duff in the Produce Marketing Act case , held the Dairy Products Sales Adjustment Act to be u l t r a vi res . The Act was not wi th in the l e g i s l a t i v e competence of the province s ince adjustment lev ies const i tu ted taxes which the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e did not have the power to impose. The J u d i c i a l Committee found i t unnecessary to determine the v a l i d i t y 63 of the Act respect ing the regula t ion of t rade . This dec is ion ended the l i f e of the Dairy Products Sales Adjustment Committee. A meeting was c a l l e d by order of J u s t i c e W.A. Macdonald to dispose of almost $17,000 c o l l e c t e d in l e v i e s . •' No producers attended to 64 lay claim to the i r share - - a powerful ind ica t ion of the resentment f e l t by the cooperat ive members. From February 16, 1931 when Chief J u s t i c e Duff de l ivered the dec is ion which declared the Produce Marketing Act i n v a l i d , un t i l November 10, 1932 when the Dairy Sales Adjustment Act was found to be u l t r a v i res by the J u d i c i a l Committee of the Pr ivy C o u n c i l , the cooperat ive members were in a s ta te of great uncer ta in ty . Independent producers greeted as a v i c t o r y each j u d i c i a l dec is ion which inva l idated the marketing l e g i s l a t i o n . But t h e i r own p o s i t i o n was made insecure by general c o n d i t i o n s . Though e a r l i e r attempts on the part of the independent producers to organize in .order to protect themselves had met with f a i l u r e , f i rmer assoc ia t ions now took root . A group of milk producers of Lulu and Sea Island incorporated under the Soc ie t i es Act as the 6^  Independent Milk Producers' Assoc ia t ion , .Loca1 No. 1, and in 1935 re - incorporated under the Soc ie t ies Act as the Independent Mi 1k • Producers 1 66 Cooperative A s s o c i a t i o n . Six weeks a f te r th is group f i r s t formed, the Richmond and Marpole Farmers' Cooperative Assoc ia t ion organized "because someone had not been p a i d . ' ' ^ 7 They a lso re - incorporated in 1944 to gain advantages under the Coopera t ive .Assoc ia t ions A c t . A th i rd group, the Mi 1k . Shippers ' Agency, organized in 1935 with Acton K i lby as 68 pres ident . These three independent groups, along with the Jersey Breeders'; Cooperat ive, continued in existence for many years . Local businessmen, dismayed by the d is rup t ion of the Va l ley economy, i n i t i a t e d moves to stabi-1 ize the market through cooperat ive a c t i o n . A f te r the Appeal Court d e c i s i o n of January 5,-1932 upheld J u s t i c e Murphy's dec is ion that the Mi lk Act was u l t r a vi r e s , an emergency committee c o n s i s t i n g of three F.V.MftR.A'. representa t ives , three independents and three businessmert was e s t a b l i s h e d . This committee drew up plans for a new group which would embrace a l l producers. The plan was accepted by the F .V .M .P .A . Independent representat ives were invi ted to the 1932 annual meeting of the A s s o c i a t i o n . Some independents, f ea r fu l of being absorbed by the Cooperat ive , attempted to organize a l l independents as a separate group. On May 31, 1932 the Lower Mainland Milk Producers' Cooperative A s s o c i a t i o n incorporated for th is purpose. S .H . Shannon, F.O. Jones, J . E . S t a r r , G.M. Smith, 69 A . H . Weston, and L . L e i g h t o n were e lected prov is iona l d i r e c t o r s and Charles H. Evans, p r e s i d e n t . 7 ^ Evans 1 d iary e n t r i e s , with the i r d a i l y accounts of milk meetings and attempts to sign up farmers, sound s i m i l a r to those made in la te 1916 as he scoured the Va l ley persuading farmers to j o i n . t h e F . V . M . P . A . • His c a u s t i c remark on A p r i l 12, 1932 about r e c a l c i t r a n t independents who refused to sign up, "each one having some p e c u l i a r excuse," sounded a more b i t t e r nore, however, than anything recorded during the e a r l i e r p e r i o d . The chaot ic marketing condi t ions and the accusat ions of independents created the pressure necessary t o . b r i n g about changes in F .V .M .P .A . p o l i c i e s . It was decided at the annual meeting in 1933 to pay shippers on a grade basis and to recognize the winter sh ipper . The adopt ion , of these p o l i c i e s was intended to prepare the way for j o i n t ac t ion with the independents. R.W. Hare, Professor of Dairying at The Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, was instrumental in br inging the groups together . He addressed the annual meeting o f . t h e F .V .M .P .A . which again was attended by a committee of independents. As a resu l t of the united ac t ion which fo l lowed , mi 1k pr ices were raised from 12 quarts for $1 to.11 quarts fo r $1. 7 1 The increase was a notable achievement, but i t f a i l e d to provide s u f f i c i e n t r e l i e f . Extreme competi t ive marketing condi t ions and the deep b i t t e rness between Cooperative members and independents made sustained voluntary ac t ion impossible . F .V .M .P .A . members continued to press fo r equa l i za t ion of f l u i d market returns and independents adamantly refused to v o l u n t a r i l y share the i r "earned market." As a resu l t of unrest among A s s o c i a t i o n members, the d i r e c t o r s i n s t i t u t e d an inquiry into the i r o r g a n i z a t i o n . Hugh Davidson, Alex Patterson and Henry Bose made up a committee with Davidson as chairman. The Davidson Report which resul ted in 1932 suggested that s ince nei ther voluntary cooperat ion nor s ta tutory regulat ion had been successfu l in d i s t r i b u t i n g the burden of the s u r p l u s , . a th i rd a l t e r n a t i v e was p o s s i b l e . By a temporary s a c r i f i c e on the part of a l l A s s o c i a t i o n members the p r i c e of f l u i d milk could be reduced to the p r ice of manufactured-products. This would e l iminate the premium which dealers paid independent producers, and as T.M. Edwards said in 1954, "would immediately necess i ta te a reorganizat ion 72 of the d i s t r i b u t o r s . " The report was not adopted. "It was n o t , " sa id 73 Edwards, "the cooperat ive approach." It is a lso l i k e l y that too many F .V .M .P .A . members r e c a l l e d the b i t t e r n e s s . o f a decade before when the F .V .M .P .A . had i n i t i a t e d p r i c e - c u t t i n g and gained nothing as a r e s u l t . The f l u i d market was too important to every producer to attempt t a c t i c s of th is type. Nevertheless i t was g a l l i n g to F .V .M .P .A . members to be accused of belonging to a dangerous monopoly when that monopoly which had the power to ruin the market, continued to p r a c t i s e re-s t r a i n t . There was a great deal of unrest . in the Va l ley as the " f l u s h season" of 1933 began. Vancouver C i ty Council had been paying 6.67c per quart for r e l i e f milk t i c k e t s . The organized farmers attempted to force the p r i c e to 8c, but three independent dairymen in Ch i l l iwack agreed to provide milk for l e s s . Three hundred dairymen marched to the homes of the three independent farmers and warned them against shipping d i r e c t l y Ik to the c i t y . A local F .V .M .P .A . meeting at Whatcom Road Hal l adjourned and seventy farmers v i s i t e d a local - farmer to warn him not to break h is c o n t r a c t . 7 ^ The most spectacu1ar.example of unrest , however, was the ac t ion taken by a crowd of two or three hundred milk producers who intercepted a truck car ry ing milk from a Hatz ic farm to.Empress D a i r i e s , a company which began business on.May 1, 1933. Empress Dai r ies bought from independents and sold to . independent d i s t r i b u t o r s . The truck d r i v e r was forced to d e l i v e r the milk t o M a i n l a n d Dairy in Vancouver. Attorney General Harry Pooley came down on .the s ide of law and order . "We s h a l l not permit in th is province the open v i o l a t i o n of the law or any in ter ference with lawful t r a f f i c on pub l i c roads . . No group of men, no matter what the i r reason w i l l be a 1 lowed to take the law into the i r 76 own hands," he dec la red . Whieldon's Truck Line claimed damages against the F .V .M .P .A . and the farmers who had led the crowd. These men were f r i g h t e n e d , but they had the support of a powerful cooperat ive . It.was the men who had agreed to ship milk to the Empress Dairy who were in an unenviable p o s i t i o n when they were sued for breach of contract by Whieldon. They refused to answer any questions as to reasons for the breach, and the Court of Appeal upheld the i r r ight to r e f u s e . 7 7 Feel ing ran so high that the p l a i n t i f f (Whieldon) asked to have the t r i a l in Vancouver rather than 78 in New Westminster where he f e l t a f a i r t r i a l would be impossib le . Although there was unrest throughout the whole V a l l e y , there is more evidence of v io lence in the'Dewdney-Matsqui area than e l s e -where. Many times independent producers found milk cans l e f t on the 79 stands emptied by h o s t i l e cooperat ive members, and o c c a s i o n a l l y cans were dumped in the r i v e r . Bas i l Gardom insinuated at the Clyne Commission hearings that cooperat ive members had been responsib le for 80 his barni , f i l l e d with q u a l i t y o a t s , being burned to the ground. These incidents are a c l e a r ind ica t ion that d i v i s i o n between indepen-dents and cooperat ive members became deeper and more b i t t e r as a resu l t of the extremely competi t ive condi t ions of the depression per iod . Nevertheless ..they shared a common problem which continued to pul l them together. Although e f f o r t s to achieve Val ley-wide cooperat ive ac t ion were f u t i l e , a new movement swept through the Va l ley a f t e r the Lower Mainland Cooperative Producers' Assoc ia t ion disbanded on August 31 , 1933. It began at a meeting in Langley of the Independent Mi1k Producers' Assoc ia t -ion and a newly formed company of e ight Vancouver independent d i s t r i b u t -ors who c a l l e d the i r organiza t ion the.Independent Mi lk D i s t r i b u t o r s Company L imi ted . F.W. S c o t t , a Sumas producer, interrupted the meeting several times with a proposal that Va l ley farmers form a union and 8l d i c t a t e pr ices to the d i s t r i b u t o r s . The idea caught on. Meetings were held throughout the Va l ley attended by independents and F .V .M .P .A . members a l i k e . The f i r s t , at C h i l l i w a c k , adopted a program which demanded 55c per pound but ter fa t for f l u i d milk and producer contro l E ,83 82 of the da i ry industry . Membership in the union skyrocketed. Farmers at the Cloverdale meeting adopted the slogan "55 Wi l l Keep Us A l i v e . ' The ta lk of "One Big Union" was i n s p i r e d , . n o doubt, by the president of the National Farmers' Holiday A s s o c i a t i o n , Mil.o Reno, who had c a l l e d for s t r i k e act ion on the part of American farmers, and by the example of Okanagan farmers who had massed on the r a i l r o a d tracks in Kelowna and Coldstream to prevent shipment of independent apples and won a v i c t o r y when the federal government had caused an in junct ion to be 84 issued to prevent the shipment. i i i Gradually the forces in support of marketing l e g i s l a t i o n began to gain s t rength . While the Farmers' Cooperative Union was taking shape, the province moved toward a . g e n e r a l . e l e c t i o n . T . D . P a t t u l l o spoke about "Work and Wages" in Ch i l l iwack the same week that s i x hundred producers had to change the i r meeting place to accommodate a l l the O r farmers anxious to support a union. Barrow shared the plat form with his party leader . Many in the crowd may.have echoed the remark of one 86 farmer who.sa id , "I d isgraced myself vot ing against Barrow las t t ime." The d i r e c t o r s of the union, representa t ive of a l l groups of producers and a l l areas of the Val 1 ey nego.t iated wi th d i s t r ibutors and they found that the Associated D a i r i e s , Crysta l Da i ry , and Jersey Farms were w i l l i n g to cooperate. Other d e a l e r s , however, wished to ra ise the p r i c e of milk to consumers. This the farmers refused to do for they f e l t the i r returns were low, not because of the pr ices to the consumer, but because p r i c e -cu t t ing had gone on at the wholesale l e v e l . Hotels and restaurants were paying only 20( per ga l lon for milk and the C i ty C o u n c i l , s t i l l taking advantage of the s u r p l u s , paid only 7i«f per quart for r e l i e f mi lk . S t r i k e act ion was discussed at the union meetings, but the execut ive l e f t the d e c i s i o n to the l o c a l s . As the excitement mounted, A . H . Mercer, F .V .M .P .A . d i r e c t o r , pr icked the bubble by announcing to the p ress , 87 "Let Mr. Jones c a l l h is s t r i k e but the milk flow to Vancouver w i l l 88 s t i l l con t inue . " The Cooperative members s u l l e n l y expressed the i r rage and f r u s t r a t i o n by r e f u s i n g , two months l a t e r , to vote Mercer back in as F .V .M .P .A . d i r e c t o r . At the time of the annual meeting, Mercer was in Ottawa where plans were underway to draw up a federal Natural Products Marketing Act which would become part of R.B. Bennett 's "New Deal" l e g i s l a t i o n . The union movement faded away; the ed i to r of But ter fa t rebuked the F . V . M . P . A . members for the i r ingrat i tude to Mercer; the d i r e c t o r s appointed him General Manager of the A s s o c i a t i o n and the farmers began again to pin the i r hopes on-marketing l e g i s l a t i o n . T . D . P a t t u l l o , the new p r o v i n c i a l premier, had made i t c l e a r to 89 the Farmers' Union that s t r i k e act ion would be considered i n t o l e r a b l e . His "Work and Wages" campaign, however, had a lso re f l ec ted "New Deal" t h i n k i n g . Both he and his M in is te r of A g r i c u l t u r e , Dr. K .C . MacDonald, were committed to a s s i s t i n g the farmer through government a c t i o n . Many obstac les lay ahead, but MacDonald was aggressive and determined to implement marketing l e g i s l a t i o n . As soon as the intent ions of the federal government were made c l e a r , a p r o v i n c i a l marketing act was passed to make p rov is ion fo r p r o v i n c i a l marketing boards to be const i tu ted which would cooperate with the dominion board. The act was to come into operat ion on the proclamation 90 of the l ieutenant -governor . The .Natural Products Marketing Act brought in by the Bennett government in J u l y , 1934 provided for the establ ishment of a Dominion.Marketing Board withepower to ..regulate time and place of marketing, d i s t r i b u t i o n , quant i ty and qua l i t y of product , to conduct p o o l i n g , to compensate for loss and to require 91 r e g i s t r a t i o n and l i c e n s i n g of producers. These powers could be delegated to local b o a r d s , t h u s enabl ing production and marketing to be 92 cont ro l l ed by those engaged in i t . P rov is ion was made for persons engaged in production and marketing to p e t i t i o n the Governor in Council to approve a scheme for the regulat ion of marketing of a natural 93 product. In August, 1934 both p r o v i n c i a l and dominion marketing'boards were e s t a b l i s h e d . Frui t -growers and milk producers were among.the f i r s t groups to draw up schemes for approva l . A f te r several weeks vof cont ro -versy and n e g o t i a t i o n , MacDonald brought the r i v a l milk fac t ions together and the Lower Mainland Dairy Products Board, made 'up..of Chairman Hugh Davidson, W.J . Park and W.T. McArthur, was appointed under both the dominion and p r o v i n c i a l s t a t u t e s . This meant, , in e f f e c t , that there were two boards, but .the personnel , o f f i c e and s t a f f were the same for each. The f i r s t act of the Mi lk Board was to ra ise the p r ice of m i l k , 94 inc luding r e l i e f m i lk , in an e f f o r t to end the ruinous p r i c e wars. On January 25, 1935 the Dominion Board passed an order imposing a tol1 95 f ixed at one cent for every pound of bu t te r fa t content marketed. This money was used to pay Mi lk Board expenses. In Ju ly a bonus of 14c was 96 paid to compensate farmers who shipped milk to cheese f a c t o r i e s . The Board was using i ts power to regulate the.market to a very l imi ted degree, but the p r o v i n c i a l government intended to 'use the r ight to pool which the board possessed. It was proposed that a s i n g l e agency be set up which would put every producer on.a quota according to h is a b i l i t y to supply milk throughout the year . With his s i n g l e agency and quota 103 p l a n , MacDonald was attempting to provide equal access to the f l u i d market. The nature of the milk boards, however, continued the p r i n c i p l e of 97 producer representat ion from each group. There was great r e s i s t a n c e . The independents who.were supplying 80% of the f l u i d market opposed the idea of a s i n g l e agency which would fo rce them to share the market. The Jersey Breeders' A s s o c i a t i o n members saw the s i n g l e agency a s . a threat to the spec ia l place they had created on the market and the F . V . M . P . A . members res is ted any plan which would mean the d i s s o l u t i o n of the Cooperat ive . W.J . Park convinced the A s s o c i a t i o n members to give the plan a try because i t meant that e q u a l i z a t i o n , the main aim of the F . V . M . P . A . , would be achieved. MacDonald was convinced that only a . s i n g l e agency scheme would work s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . But when the Dominion Marketing Board refused permiss ion , a plan was subst i tu ted which gave every producer h is share of the market without abo l ish ing the e x i s t i n g agencies , the Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n , the Independent Mi1k Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n and the Jersey 98 Mi lk Breeders' A s s o c i a t i o n . The future of compulsory pool ing was very uncer ta in . R.B. Bennett 's s h i p , with i ts " f l a g of progress" na i led to the masthead, had sunk and Mackenzie King, who had c r i t i c i z e d . t h e "New Deal" l e g i s l a t i o n in o p p o s i t i o n , submitted i t to the Supreme Court for an opinion on i ts v a l i d i t y in , January, 1936. Independents~appea1ed to the P r o v i n c i a l Marketing Board 99 against the pool ing scheme, • The i r wish was-granted by the Dominion Marketing Board which suspended the orders of the B .C. Mi lk Marketing Board se t t ing up a pool . T h i s move was not incons is tent with the p o l i c i e s of Mackenzie King who had objected to "the a r b i t r a r y and bureaucrat ic powers" which the Act c o n f e r r e d . 1 ^ 1 The Act was fur ther undermined when both Alber ta and Saskatchewan Appeal Courts ruled federal 102 marketing acts u l t r a v i res . In the United S ta tes , the A g r i c u l t u r a l Adminis t ra t ion Act implemented by the Roosevelt government was found i n v a l i d by the Supreme Court , .an ominous warning to Canadian cooperat ive members. MacDonald pers is ted in his e f f o r t s . The Dominion Marketing Board was persuaded to grant powers to a s i n g l e agency on the condi t ion that the Mi lk Board regulate the qua l i t y of milk on the f l u i d market to a bac te r ia count of 150,000 and the quant i ty to a d a i l y minimum of 60 pounds. Through p l e b i s c i t e s farmers could ind ica te whether or not they favored cont inuat ion of the p r o v i n c i a l milk marketing scheme and whether or not they favored a s i n g l e agency. Ninety-two percent of the large number who voted approved milk marketing, but only seventy- four percent voted for 10A a s i n g l e agency. From a s l a t e of seventeen candidates , W.J . Park and T .M. Edwards were e lected to the new Milk Board by the milk producers and W.T. McArthur was appointed by the government. A l l th is was accomplished before the Supreme Court of Canada made pub l ic in June, 1936 i ts judgment on the Natural Products Marketing A c t , 193^- The Act was unanimously rejected on the ground that i t attempted to regulate the provinces by a commission. Such " regu la t ion of ind iv idua l t rades, o r . t rades in ind iv idua l commodities in th is sweeping fash ion" the Court held to be not wi thin the competence of the parliament of . 105 Canada. . . . . The government of B r i t i s h Columbia immediately proclaimed the Natural Products Marketing Act (B.C.) and named the incumbent board to continue in o f f i c e u n t i l March .31 , 1937- Pooling was avoided, but i t was poss ib le to achieve the same e f f e c t by grant ing the board the power to author ize an agency to purchase milk marketed through i t , to f i x maximum and minimum pr ices and to c o l l e c t l i c e n s e s . In two c u r t l y worded telegrams to the Prime M i n i s t e r , P a t t u l l o aff irmed his support for compulsory l e g i s l a t i o n , indicated that B r i t i s h Columbia would appeal the Supreme Court dec is ion and attempted to secure some guarantee that the federal government would not introduce a marketing measure based on a voluntary s c h e m e . 1 ^ k ing 's rep l ies were vague and wordy, but he did ind icate that he favored marketing l e g i s l a t i o n which had no compulsory features and he welcomed an appeal to the Pr ivy C o u n c i l . 1 ^ 7 A l l the provinces had passed marketing acts designed to complement the federal ac t , but i t was the Attorney-General for B r i t i s h Columbia who appealed the Supreme Court judgment to the J u d i c i a l Committee of the Pr ivy C o u n c i l . The Attorneys-General of Ontar io , Quebec and New Brunswick were c r i t i c a l of dominion invasion of a p rov inc ia l f i e l d . The Attorney-General for Canada supported the appeal . His represent-a t ive argued that a l l powers fo r the s e l f - a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of Canada and the provinces "were . imparted to one or the other of the Leg is la tures and that what was not in one was of necess i ty in the o t h e r . " The two l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t i e s , "having betweenthem the whole of the powers. . . should be able to exerc ise them in such a way as is proper for the good 108 administ ra t ion of the inhab i tan t . " Although Lord A t k i n , who de l ivered the judgment, expressed apprec ia t ion of the importance of the aim of combined l e g i s l a t i o n , .the appeal was d ismissed. "Unless and unt i l a change is made in the respect ive l e g i s l a t i v e funct ions of Dominion and Province i t may well be that s a t i s f a c t o r y resu l ts for both can only be obtained by coopera t ion , " stated His Lordship . "But the l e g i s l a t i o n w i l l have to be c a r e f u l l y framed and w i l l not be achieved by e i ther party leaving i ts sphere and 109 encroaching upon that of the o t h e r . " The Fraser Va l ley Mi 1k Producers 1 A s s o c i a t i o n had been formed in 1913 by men who hoped to control marketing through voluntary j o i n t a c t i o n . When th is could not be achieved, they had attempted to gain equa l i za t ion of returns through compulsive l e g i s l a t i o n . The long st ruggle had led to th is b l i n d a l l e y . Neither p r o v i n c i a l nor federal l e g i s l a t i o n had proved e f f e c t i v e and they were now faced with the problem of br idging the gap between the two areas of j u r i s d i c t i o n or of f ind ing a way that would avo id ' the "No Man's Land" between the two. i v Of eight reform laws referred to the Supreme Court by the Mackenzie King government in January, 1936, only two had been found to be v a l i d . This ind ica t ion that the federal government was unable to l e g i s l a t e in the in teres ts of the whole country caused great consternat ion among h i s t o r i a n s and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l lawyers. Professor D.G. Cre ighton, a convinced centra 1 i s t , was prepared to admit that the changes in r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n of leadership between federal and p r o v i n c i a l author i ty were 110 determined by s o c i a l f o r c e s . In s p i t e of t h i s , he bel ieved that the Canadian c o n s t i t u t i o n would have been shaped d i f f e r e n t l y but for the machinations and inadequacies of members of the J u d i c i a l Committee of the Pr ivy C o u n c i l . Without quest ioning the reasons dec is ions continued to be referred to th is Committee, Creighton lampooned i ts m e m b e r s ^ and placed the blame for the weakening of federal power, not on a growing Canadian s e c t i o n a l i s m , but on the dec is ions of the members of the J u d i c i a l Committee of the Pr ivy Council whom he c a l l e d the "stepfathers ,112 of Confederat ion. Many a u t h o r i t i e s accepted th is ve rd ic t and i t became "the common 113 sport of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l lawyers" to condemn Lord Watson and Lord 114 Haldane for perver t ing the intent ions of the Fathers of Confederat ion. Canadian farmers may have shared some of th is antipathy to B r i t i s h judges, but because i t was Cooperative members throughout the country who supported the c o n t r o l l e d marketing, the i r resentment was d i rec ted at the groups which chal lenged the l e g i s l a t i o n . Both a t t i tudes were react ions rather than a reasoned response. Professor J . R . Mai l o r y ' s percept ive ana lys is provided a bet ter explanat ion for the "No Man's Land" in which those seeking marketing legis1 at ion " found themselves. He pointed out that the c o u r t s , which have become instruments for in te rpre t ing and reso lv ing c o n f l i c t s wi th in the state are l imi ted in th is funct ion because 115 they can act only in the presence of l i t i g a t i o n ' . Like a o u i j a board, the courts can give only l imi ted answers to questions presented to them. The Supreme Court of Canada in re jec t ing l e g i s l a t i o n in 1931 over which there was intense c o n f l i c t could only react to th is tension by denying the author i ty of the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e . The Supreme Court, of Canada in 1936 and the J u d i c i a l Committee of the Pr ivy Council in 1937 were powerless to restore the author i ty which the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s -latures had gained. The dec is ions could only re ject the author i ty of the federal parliament in order that precedents es tab l ished e a r l i e r could be fo l lowed. This delay , while f r u s t r a t i n g to those who saw- marketing l e g i s l a t i o n as a n e c e s s i t y , prevented h a s t i l y conceived and fau l ty l e g i s l a t i o n from becoming e s t a b l i s h e d . While Creighton was v o i c i n g a vigorous nat ional ism in his attack on the Pr ivy C o u n c i l , :Professor Harold .A. Innis was expressing a real concern about the economic t rend. Innis, who declared nat ional ism to be "the las t refuge of s c o u n d r e l s , " 1 ^ expressed th is d isqu ie t when he s a i d , "Compulsion has reared i ts ugly head where cooperat ion was the p a s s w o r d . " ^ 7 The members of the F .V;M;P.A. had been convinced that the Dairy Products Sales Adjustment Act was an "advanced marketing measure." Perhaps men l i k e Innis were troubled because they were aware that i t was a tool developed by one group of farmers committed to a " f ree en te rp r i se" system in order to compete with another group which refused to j o i n them. Court dec is ions which cancel led each other re f l ec ted the problem. The s t ruggle for l e g i s l a t i o n was protracted because i t was played out against the backdrop of the depress ion , which not only increased competit ion among producers, but a lso paralyzed any move toward pro-gress ive marketing measures. The formation of the F .V .M .P .A . was a response to pressures which forced farmers to increase t h e i r e f f i c i e n c y in an increas ing ly indust r ia 1ized s o c i e t y . Though i t was not c lea r to many of the farmers demanding compulsory l e g i s l a t i o n , the concept of government control implied more than the use of a centra 1 iz ing power to equal ize oppor tun i t ies for producers;• i t implied that a c o l l e c t i v e author i ty would safeguard the in teres ts of a l l . Consumers would be served best by increased e f f i c i e n c y in a g r i c u l t u r e . The sort of pressure required to br ing th is about could be exerted under prosperous economic c o n d i t i o n s , but during the harsh depression years the producer-vendors, operat ing on a small s c a l e , clung .desperately t o . t h e i r share of the market and there was a reluctance to force them out of bus iness , p a r t i c u l a r l y when the i r problems were s o . s i m i l a r to those of the small shipper wi th in the C o o p e r a t i v e . ^ 7 During the d i f f i c u l t depression years the Cooperat ive helped one group of producers to s u r v i v e ; the f a i l u r e to impose l e g i s -la t ion e i ther to enforce pasteur iza t ion or to equal ize returns protected another group. It is d i f f i c u l t not to conclude that the Sanford Evans 1 d e c i s i o n to support the p r i n c i p l e s of freedom o f , a c t i o n and the Supreme Court dec is ion pronounced by .Ch ie f J u s t i c e Lyman Duff in 1931 were based not so much on a cons idera t ion of the p r i n c i p l e s at stake as upon a s e n s i t i v i t y to the s e v e r e - s t r e s s in the a g r i c u l t u r a l populat ion as a resu l t of an unprecedented economic depress ion . The Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' Assoc ia t ion was, as Perry Starr 118 s t a t e d , on the r ight t rack , but economic condi t ions would have to improve and the issues would have to be placed in a broader context than a s t ruggle between producers before success could be achieved. VI CONTROL i The marketing l e g i s l a t i o n had been declared u l t r a v i r e s when i t had been chal lenged by independent producers and d i s t r i b u t o r s . The dealers may have gained some temporary advantages from the f a i l u r e to improve control over marketing, but the independent producers did not. For them, as for the F .V .M.P .A . members, an assured market and an adequate return were very important. In 1955 The Honorable J . V . C lyne , Commissioner of the Milk Inquiry, spoke of the " s u r p r i s i n g outburst of amity" 1 which brought independents and Cooperative members together to form the Associated D a i r i e s . The "outburst" is not so s u r p r i s i n g i f we r e a l i z e that the chaot ic marketing condi t ions caused by the enormous surplus was a problem for a l l producers. The inc red ib le b i t te rness which developed between independent producers and Cooperative members revolved, not around c o n t r o l , but around the question of e q u a l i z a t i o n of re turns . The independents spoke of the importance of the law of supply and demand. They i n s i s t e d that by maintaining a high standard of production they had created a demand and therefore had earned a r ight to the market which they refused to r e l i n q u i s h . In s p i t e of th is ins is tence on a spec ia l place in the market, independent producers found so lu t ions to marketing problems which were s i m i l a r to those worked out by Va l ley farmers in 1917. When pressures mounted, the independents organized into cooperat ives in order to deal more e f f e c t i v e l y with d i s t r i b u t o r s . Though i t was independents who res is ted attempts to implement a pool ing scheme and who chal lenged the author i ty of the Mi lk Board, they attempted to impose the same type of control on the i r members. The Independent Milk Producers' Cooperative Assoc ia t ion had paid the t o l l s lev ied by the B r i t i s h Columbia Lower Mainland Dairy Products Board from February, 1935 un t i l June.15, 1935. They ceased payment when the plans to implement a pool ing scheme were announced. On January 28, 1937, the day the Pr ivy Council announced i ts dec is ion that the Natural Products Act was i n v a l i d , the Independent Milk Producers' Assoc ia t ion brought act ion to recover the t o l l s which had been paid 2 to the Board, a tota l of $3,95^-26. The act ion was d ismissed. In the meantime, the same cooperat ive had taken act ion against a dairyman, T . C . Brooke, who res is ted equa l i za t ion l e v i e s . At the time when Dr. MacDonald f a i l e d to achieve h is s i n g l e agency, three of the e x i s t i n g bod ies , the Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n , the Jersey Breeders' Assoc ia t ion and the Independent Mi lk Producers' Cooperative A s s o c i a t i o n , had been authorized as agencies through which dairymen could s e l l the i r product. Gibson's Dai ry , to which Brooke sh ipped, chose to market through the T .M .P .C .A . Though he had been secretary of the a s s o c i a t i o n , he la te r withdrew his membership but continued as a sh ipper . On the ground that he was not a member, Brooke took act ion to recover the levy. He was awarded a judgment for 3 $293.12 and the I .M.P.C.A. los t the i r appeal against the d e c i s i o n . The Independent Milk Producers who led the f i g h t to oppose equa l i za t ion had operated an ind iv idua l milk pool wi th in the i r own a s s o c i a t i o n "to d i s t r i b u t e the burden upon the producers whose f l u i d milk quota was f i x e d , and who then sold the i r surplus milk on the manufacturing market at a lower p r i c e . " Brooke stood in r e l a t i o n to the I .M.P.C.A. as the Independent Cooperative did to the Lower Mainland Dairy Products Board. Any producers' group was forced to have a surplus in order to ensure a steady supply to the d i s t r i b u t o r s . The I .M .P .C .A . was using the same method to deal with the surplus that the F . V . M . P . A . advocated for the whole V a l l e y . It was as powerless to force e q u a l i -zat ion upon producers unwi l l ing to cooperate as was the F . V . M . P . A . I .M.P.C.A. members must have f e l t a real sense of gr ievance toward a former executive member who grasped advantage but refused to share r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . It is the height of irony that i f they had obtained control over th is r e c a l c i t r a n t shipper they would have lost the r ight to j u s t i f y the i r own ex is tence . The burden of the surplus became.so oppressive to the members of the F .V .M .P .A . that in September, 1936, when hope of l e g i s l a t i v e measures appeared dim, the A s s o c i a t i o n decided to c lose i t s membership.^ Not only were current members locked into the A s s o c i a t i o n , but others who wished to enter were kept out . This was a fa r cry from cooperat ive p r i n c i p l e s . Many members were uneasy about the d e c i s i o n . The major i ty voted in favor of the a c t i o n , however, because new shippers meant an increase in the amount of milk which would have to be manufactured. This could only resu l t in a fur ther depressing of the s e t t l i n g ra te . Some farmers were moving into the Va l ley from the p r a i r i e s , men whose meagre resources were s t i l l s u f f i c i e n t to prevent them from becoming completely immobile. They had almost invar iab ly belonged to gra in growers' coopera t ives , and as they s e t t l e d into Va l ley communities the i r sympathies became known. It would sure ly be d i f f i c u l t for an a s s o c i a t i o n which c a l l e d i t s e l f a cooperat ive to bar such men from i ts membership. They were a lso young men attempting to get s tar ted who had to be considered . F . V . M . P . A . members were c e r t a i n l y not Boy le 's "eager souls who saw a v i s i o n of a new heavan and a new e a r t h , " but ne i ther was i t mere l i p se rv ice which they paid to the p r i n c i p l e s of cooperat ion . Shipping contracts were given to chosen a p p l i c a n t s , "bona f ide producers ." At the end of the year these men were admitted to f u l l membership. Independent shippers who were cut o f f by d i s t r i b u t o r s were thus kept out as were sporadic s h i p p e r s . The c losed membership was debated at every annual meeting but was re-tained un t i l 19^2 when improved condi t ions made the p o l i c y a d i s -advantage. Even then "contract breakers" were not allowed e n t r y . 7 With the unanimous re jec t ion o f . t h e federal Natural Products Marketing Act by the Supreme Court of Canada in June, 1936, the p r o v i n c i a l government immediately proclaimed the Natural Products Marketing Act Q (B.C.) to take e f f e c t at 11:30 A . M . , June 18, 1936. The incumbent 9 board was retained in o f f i c e . It could not pool pr ices but was given power to author ize an agency to purchase milk marketed through i t and to p roh ib i t the sa le of milk to any other agency.. It could f i x maximum and minimum p r i c e s , and in place of the former Board's power to c o l l e c t a levy, i t was authorized to c o l l e c t l icenses from producers, p rocessors , manufacturers and marketers of m i l k . ^ This was an attempt to use only powers which the p r o v i n c i a l government possessed. Costs of adminis ter ing the scheme were to be met by revenue from l icenses required of a l l groups in the milk industry rather than from equa l i za t ion lev ies on producers. The Board's power to set quotas and f i x pr ices through a s i n g l e agency would have the e f fec t of equa l i z ing the producers' share of the market even though the province had no power to e s t a b l i s h a pool ing scheme. The independents strenuously opposed the milk marketing p lan . Acton K i l b y , president of the Milk Shippers ' Agency, claimed the Board 11 was implementing a scheme which was, in e f f e c t , a p o o l . It was attempting to do . i n d i r e c t l y what i t could not do d i r e c t l y , contrary to the sound legal p r i n c i p l e that when anything is proh ib i ted d i r e c t l y , i t is a lso prohib i ted i n d i r e c t l y . Bas i l Gardom, president of the Independent Milk Producers' Cooperative A s s o c i a t i o n , declared that compulsory pool ing of milk from Grade.A and B farms placed super ior 12 and lower grades on the same b a s i s . ; W.J . Park protested that fancy barns did not necessar i l y mean clean mi 1k. The q u a l i t y of the product 13 was the important f a c t o r . In November, 1936 new reg is t ra t ion .was required of a l l milk producers by the Mi lk Board. G.W. Shannon, T . H . MacDonald and M.B. McDermid claimed they were under no o b l i g a t i o n to reg is te r to obtain l icenses or to pay fees . . They sought an in junct ion to res t ra in the Board from c o l l e c t i n g fees and asked that the Natural • Products Marketing Act be dec!ared u l t r a v i r e s . Mr. J u s t i c e A.M. Manson, r e f e r r i n g to the Pr ivy Council dec is ion regarding the federal Natural Products Marketing A c t , and quoting Lord Atk in to support his judgment, 1 5 found the B r i t i s h Columbia Act to be i n v a l i d . The Attorney-General re ferred the l e g i s l a t i o n to the Court of Appeal to determine in what p a r t i c u l a r s and to what extent the Act was u l t r a v i r e s the l e g i s l a t u r e . The Court held that the Act was not in any p a r t i c u l a r beyond the powers of the l e g i s l a t u r e of the province of 16 B r i t i s h Columbia. When Shannon, MacDonald and McDermid appealed th is d e c i s i o n to the Privy C o u n c i l , the judgment of the B r i t i s h Columbia Court of Appeal was a f f i r m e d . 1 7 The judges, Lord Atkin among them, found the p r o v i n c i a l Act to be v a l i d , reminding the appel lants that "within i ts appointed sphere' the Prov inc ia l L e g i s l a t u r e is as 18 supreme as any other Par l iament ." This judgment was most s i g n i f i c a n t support ing as i t did the author i ty of the p r o v i n c i a l government to regulate p a r t i c u l a r businesses e n t i r e l y wi thin the prov ince , to impose l icenses and to delegate author i ty to the Lieutenant-Governor in 19 C o u n c i l . The Committee suggested "with great respect" that Chief J u s t i c e Duff had taken "a somewhat narrow view of the Prov inc ia l powers" on the question of lev ies in Lawson v. the In ter ior Tree F r u i t 20 and Vegetables Committee of D i r e c t i o n . The d e c i s i o n in the Shannon case , announced on Ju ly 27, 1938, removed an enormous obstac le to the attainment of con t ro l l ed marketing. i i It was not enough for the p r o v i n c i a l government to have the author i ty to control marketing. The means by which control was exer-c ised had to be genera l ly acceptab le . Marketing boards set up under the Act had become increas ing ly unpopular. The B.C. Coast Vegetable Board, in an attempt to control the Vancouver vegetable market, had set quotas for i n t e r i o r and coast producers and had f ixed p r i c e s . Guards were set on the bridges leading into Vancouver to prevent 21 untagged potatoes from coming i n . There was.a great deal of zeal in imposing contro l and a great deal of res is tance to i t . Chinese market gardeners in the Ladner and Richmond area had been p a r t i c u l a r l y 22 obst inate in r e s i s t i n g regu la t ion . The courts began to show a decided lack of sympathy fo r the purpose of the board. Mr. J u s t i c e A.M. Manson .granted an • in junc t ion order ing the B.C. Coast Vegetable Marketing Board not to in te r fe re with Lowe Chong and Low Yee in the i r business of export ing potatoes. "The t rouble about these boards is that sometimes they know t h e i r business and sometimes they d o n ' t , " commented Manson, a f te r po int ing out that potatoes were s e l l i n g at a high p r i c e arid growers had no need of a 23 marketing board. A committee was appointed to invest igate the a c t i v i t i e s of the 2k Board. Though there were complaints of d ishonesty , many growers 25 defended the Board at the inqu i ry . The probe was discont inued without charges being l a i d . It was decided that the main problem 26 was- bootlegging by O r i e n t a l s . T . G . Norr is K.G"., address i ng" the el eventh annual meeting of the Canadian A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics S o c i e t y , exposed the e s s e n t i a l weakness of marketing board c o n t r o l . Because there was no dominion l e g i s l a t i o n to complement the p rov inc ia l c o n t r o l , marketing boards had tended to extend the i r power and, in many c a s e s , were endeavoring to do i n d i r e c t l y 27 what could not be done d i r e c t l y . If Or ien ta ls were a menace, he argued, l e g i s l a t i o n designed d i r e c t l y to meet th is i l l should be implemented.,' The attempt to deal w i t h r a c i a l questions by a marketing control measure could only lead to improper admin is t ra t ion of marketing 28 c o n t r o l . The competit ion of Chinese farmers which led to r a c i a l tensions among the f r u i t and vegetable growers was not a problem in the milk industry . But the attempts to enforce regulat ion on a minor i ty group-made the pub l i c d i s t r u s t f u l of any attempts at c o n t r o l . In a soc ie ty where a growing uneasiness about t o t a l i t a r i a n methods of achieving e f f i c i e n c y had given way to alarm and preparat ion to do ba t t l e against Nazi and Fasc is t aggression had begun, , there was a growing into lerance for forced regu la t ion . L e g i s l a t i o n enacted for the benef i t of producers could succeed onlywhen i t had the support , not only of a l l the producers, but a lso of a l l the people. 117 Milk Board members, W.J. Park, T.M. Edwards and W.T. McArthur were 29 zealous in carrying out their duties. It may be that the members, two of whom belonged to the F.V.M.P.A. hoped to establish a reputation for impartiality. Far from accomplishing this, they merely lost the confidence of the group of producers who had consistently fought for marketing control. Dissatisfied F.V.M.P.A. members registered their disapproval by defeating Park in the election for directors in 1937, but he remained on the Milk Board which continued an uncertain existence. The Manson decision in the Brit ish Columbia Supreme Court announced in May, 1937, destroyed the credib i l i ty of the Board, When the B.C. Court of Appeal reversed the Manson decision in July, the term of off ice of the Lower Mainland Dairy Products Board was extended to November 30, 1937. Farmers were very slow to re-register with the Board. Of 900 Cooperative members only M responded. Members of the Board were accused of neglecting good salesmanship and psychology in promoting satisfactory relations between themselves and the farmers. Their 31 principal statements had been threats to prosecute. In response 32 to this antagonism, Milk Board members resigned, recommending that 33 a neutral board be appointed. They had learned through experience that as representatives of producer groups they could not work effect ively. If a marketing board was to operate successfully, its members would have to be selected on some other basis that a representative one. The method by which this could be done remained to be worked out. The need for control was great but in selecting a new Milk Board the principle of neutrality was extended only to the chairman of the Board, who was chosen much as the chairman of an arbitration board would be. The F.V.M.P.A. members chose E.D. Barrow as representative on the 34 new Milk Board, the Milk Shippers' Agency chose W.T. McArthur and W.E. Williams, K.C., choice of the elected members was appointed 35 chairman. The new Milk Board attempted to raise prices and improve quality, but for several months before the Privy Council decision in the Shannon case was announced, resistance intensified. Members of the Board pointed out in a letter to the editor of the Province that in March, 1936, producers had voted 1246 to 92 for the continuation of the scheme. Circulars and propaganda issued by dairies whose supply came from the Independent Milk Producers' Cooperative Association were creating misunderstanding.^ Gardom, in replying, traced a history of oppression of independents 37 by "the combine" which extracted " t r ibute. " In reply to Gardom, J.W. Carmichael attempted to explain the need for control and the role •JO the F.V.M.P.A. had played in achieving better conditions for the farmer. When 21,500 housewives sent letters to Premier Pattullo through the I.M.P.C.A. protesting the inclusion of dairy products in the marketing scheme in B.C., it was obvious that the independents were winning a 39 propaganda war. F.V.M.P.A. members always sensitive to the importance of the consumer and bewildered by the spate of propaganda, were un-wil l ing to give wholehearted support to the methods of controlling the market which were developing. When his term of of f ice elapsed at 4o the end of March, 1938, McArthur resigned because of producer apathy. 41 The independents refused to elect a new member and Barrow and Williams were left to carry on alone. The Privy Council decision in July, 1938 upholding the val idity of the Natural Products Marketing Act stimulated more support for the Milk Board. A marketing plan was agreed upon almost immediately by the F.V.M.P.A. and the I.M.P.C.A. In addition to the existing board, the creation of a single agency was proposed to market a l l milk for sale in the Lower Mainland. It was emphasized that the primary producer hi should have complete control of this agency, an indication that there was no realization of the fact that control would be ineffective as long as it continued to be a tool or a weapon in the hands of producers. A plebiscite was held and milk producers voted overwhelmingly in favor of control and also of a single agency. E.D. Barrow was elected Milk Board member by the F.V.M.P.A. and Lh Acton Kilby was elected by the independents. W.E. Williams was appointed chairman. The independents elected E.G. Sherwood as a member of the new single agency; the F.V.M.P.A. elected W.J. Park. J.W. Carmichael was appointed by the Lower Mainland Dairy Products Board hS when the two elected men fai led to agree on a third member. By May 1, 1939 the single agency was organized as the Milk Producers' Clearing House Cooperative Association. This association was prepared to purchase milk from licensed producers for resale to licensed dealers 47 46 and producer-vendors. The retai l price of milk was set at 11c per quart in Vancouver and 10c per quart in Burnaby and New Westminster. Neither Cooperative members nor independents were sat isf ied with the action taken in setting the retai l price of milk. They fe l t that price-setting would be of advantage to the dealer but would do nothing to prevent the price-cutting at the wholesale level which was disrupting the milk market. They protested that the board was distr ibutor-controlled. Meetings were called under the auspices of both the 48 F.V.M.P.A. and the I.M.P.C.A. A resolution was passed at one large gathering asking the Milk Board to change its orders to meet objections raised at the meeting. A group of independent dealers and producer-vendors^0 obtained an injunction to prevent the clearing house scheme from coming into effect. Crystal Dairy also sought a ruling that Orders 3 to 6 of the Milk Marketing scheme were invalid. Though the F.V.M.P.A. members were not enthusiastic about the milk scheme, they did not wish to see the Milk Board cease to function; neither were they wil l ing to provide money to fight the injunction."' 1 W.A. Hayward, representing the p la in t i f f s , asked for the injunction on the grounds that the clearing house was carrying on its business 52 as a pool association and was therefore i l l ega l . The action was dismissed by Justice H.B. Robertson of the Supreme Court. But an appeal reversed the decision. The Clearing House Association was declared to be a corporation which was not an effective agency because an amendment to the rules laid down in Section 27 of the Cooperative 53 Associations Act had not been complied with. Not a l l members of the Board had been elected as the rules required. The scheme was, there-fore, declared invalid on a technicality. A similar action brought by Crystal Dairy also reversed an earl ier decision by Justice Robertson, 54 but in both cases Justice W.G. McQuarrie dissented from the judgment. The battle against the clearing house had been fought not only in the courts but also on the streets. On the next page is a fascimile of the pamphlets which were distributed, describing the milk scheme as fascist. Readers were invited to sign, c l ip out and send to Premier Pattullo petitions which were published in the newspapers. The propaganda war had a te l l ing effect on opinion in Vancouver. Though Mayor Lyle Telford echoed distributor propaganda when he claimed that the Milk Board was attempting to impose "despotic Airs v-yo Co uesc; 120a . . W e as/^  the question in all seriousness. It concerns you because— 1. A Milk Board and its agency, supported by the Fraser Valley Milk Producers Association, whose milk is ^ distributed in Greater Vancouver by the Associated Dairies, is exerting- every force to obtain power over ' the entire industry and create a common pool of milk. Do you approve? Have you been consulted? 2. This group, if it succeeds, will have the power of life and death over the economic existence of farmers, dairymen, truckers and producer-vendors. To one it may say: "You may do business"; to another, "You may not do business." Is this Canada—or is it Germany? Do you approve such un-Canadian power? 3. Independent farmers and dairies have been forced to fight for existence and now a corporation has been formed with issued capital of F I V E one-dollar shares, to buy and sell all the milk in the Fraser Valley. Two out of three of its active directors are members of the Fraser Valley Milk Producers Association which for twenty-two years has tried to dominate the milk business in Vancouver. Do you want to click your heels to these would-be "fuehrers" of the milk trade? 4. The Milk Board and its monopolistic agency is prevented only by court action from putting your dairy at its mercy, probably putting' your milkman and others out of .jobs in these days of unemployment. If their jobs aren't safe, is yours? Perhaps "efficiency" could eliminate you, too! Fascism makes its appeal on the basis of efficiency, but it is actually inefficient in practice. Do you believe in the right of a man to work in freedom if he serves courteously and well? 5. W e like to feel that you buy your milk from us because we take special pains to search out the best and safest supply. Do you want us to agree to the Board's demand that we take what milk we are given—for this is exactly what we have been asked to do—and thus lose control over the quality of our product? We are fig-hting- against a form of tyranny. Now we ask you to stand with us for fair play and basic British principles. It is YOUH fight, too. The only hope of winning it is by the weight of public opinion. Will you register your opinion this easy way? Please sig-n now. CRYSTAL DAIRY LTD., 1803 Commercial Dr., Vancouver, B.C. Unless you wish lo mail this lettor to the Trciuier yourself, just sign and leave it for your milkman. He will sec that it reaches its destination. ION. T. D. P A T T U L L O , June , 1930. ?remier of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C. I, the undersigned, and the members of my household, indignantly protest against the action of the Milk Soard in its effort to create a monopoly in the milk business in Greater Vancouver. We believe that monopoly nd restraint of trade are undemocratic and against the interests of the citizens and we accordingly hereby egister our strong- disapproval. p o l i t i c a l d i c t a t o r s h i p in i ts most v ic ious form,"' ' ' ' h is c r i t i c i s m voiced a concern for the Vancouver c i t i z e n . His suggestion that "the only poss ib le s o l u t i o n is a n o n - p o l i t i c a l u t i l i t y commission," was a demand for consumer representat ion oh the Mi lk Board. In s p i t e of the i r doubts about the methods of the Mi lk B o a r d , ^ F .V .M .P .A . members continued to give i t re luctant support . The s i t u a t i o n was discussed at the annual p i c n i c in J u l y , 1939. The r ine f fec t iveness of the Milk Board destroyed hope for c o n t r o l . There were no reasonab le .a l te rna t ives to cons ider . Both Macken and Barrow rQ advised against p r i c e - c u t t i n g , but there was a good deal of ta lk among Cooperative members that such a threat should be implemented. When independents protes ted , Macken rep l ied that "any f l u i d market p r i c e above the world pr ice of manufactured products could only be maintained by statutory . regu1 a t i o n s , and s ince s ta tutory regulat ions seemed impossible because of court dec is ions^ the a s s o c i a t i o n members 59 seemed to fee l that there was no sense in cont inuing the s t r u g g l e . " An attempt by Turner 's Da i ry , represent ing a number of producers and d i s t r i b u t o r s , ^ to br ing an act ion quest ioning the v a l i d i t y of . Mi lk Board orders was held up by the refusal of W.E. Wil l iams to answer questions put to him on his examination for d iscovery . The d e c i s i o n of J u s t i c e D.A. McDonald of the Supreme Court that a member 61 of the Board must answer any quest ion was reversed by the Court of 62 Appeal . This dec is ion protected members of the Board. But a judgment was handed down.in favor of Turner 's Dairy and assoc ia tes 63 when f i v e orders of the Milk Board were declared u l t r a v i r e s . An appeal uph ld the d e c i s i o n , the judges f ind ing that the orders made by the L .M.D.P. Board and the scheme estab1 ished were " i n real purpose and e f f e c t a co lourable device for equa l i z ing the returns to producers and imposing an ind i rec t tax, and therefore u l t r a vi r e s . " Chief 6k J u s t i c e M.A. Macdonald dissented from the judgment. Members of the F .V .M .P .A . decided at the i r annual meeting in March 19^ 1 to a s s i s t the Mi lk Board in car ry ing an appeal to a higher c o u r t . The p r o v i n c i a l government announced that i t would a l s o give f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e . Representatives of the F ru i t and Vegetable Marketing Boards volunteered support s ince a l l marketing schemes would be 66 af fec ted by the d e c i s i o n . The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the judgment of the B r i t i s h Columbia c o u r t s . The proposed c l e a r i n g house was declared i l l e g a l . ^ The p r o v i n c i a l government had the power to control marketing of mi lk , but the means used had been found to be i l l e g a l . In re jec t ing measures. which were r e l u c t a n t l y accepted by those who demanded them and completely unacceptable to o thers , the j u d i c i a r y , r e f l e c t i n g the c o n f l i c t and i n d e c i s i v e n e s s , was p lay ing a c rea t ive rather than a purely l e g a l i s t i c r o l e . i i i War-time demands brought an increase in the p r i c e of manufactured milk products . This improved the p o s i t i o n of the F . V . M . P . A . and removed the i r need for a milk board. They refused to support the independent milk producers' attempts to obtain bet ter p r i c e s . As a r e s u l t , the e ight hundred independents began to revive the Farmers' 68 Union. The movement col 1apsed with the announcement by the War Time Pr ices and Trade Board that subs id ies would be paid to milk producers for milk for manufacturing and. in some cases" fo r f l u i d mi lk . Because of the nat ional emergency,, the federal government had power, not only to grant s u b s i d i e s , but a lso to f i x both producer and consumer p r i c e s . From September 1, 19^2 when the marketing of milk came under the control of the War Time Pr ices and Trade Board u n t i l J u l y , 19^6 when the control was'removed, there was peace in the industry because of c o n t r o l l e d marketing, good pr ices and expanding markets for manufactured mi lk . During th is period of war-time p r o s p e r i t y , there was evidence that a t t i tudes were changing and hardening. In 19^0 the Rowell S i r o i s Report had described the movement away from " l a i s s e z " p o l i c i e s which had been an es tab l ished trend for years and had recommended that there be concurrent l e g i s l a t i o n for grading and marketing of produce. 7*^ A Royal Commission, appointed to inquire into marketing boards, repudiated the Sanford Evans Report and predicted that the sphere of governmental 71 contro l would become wider . The Milk Inquiry Report of 1928.had recommended "that the product ion , d i s t r i b u t i o n and sa le of milk and cream for the f l u i d trade be treated 72 as a p u b l i c u t i l i t y . " The main in te res t of the Cooperat ive was in contro l over marketing. It was d i f f i c u l t fo r a minor i ty wi th in the A s s o c i a t i o n to gain support for more s t r ingent production standards. A f te r a c e r t a i n point was reached, the pressures had to come from without . Over the years governments had supported control led marketing but had not taken enough r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for se t t ing and control 1ing the standard of q u a l i t y . This explains why d i s t r i b u t o r propaganda in Vancouver was d i f f i c u l t for the Cooperative to re fu te . It a lso e x p l a i n s , in par t , the antagonism of Vancouver mayors towards marketing l e g i s l a t i o n . Too of ten the consumer was forgotten in the desperate st ruggle between independents and the F . V . M . P . A . As World War II neared- i ts end, a b i l l to br ing milk under the contro l of the Publ ic U t i l i t i e s Commission was brought into the l e g i s l a t u r e in an e f f o r t to prevent chaos in the milk industry with the 7 3 removal o f w a r - t i m e c o n t r o l s . L e g i s l a t i o n to contro l creameries and d a i r i e s , a l o g i c a l accompaniment to such a b i l l , was. withdrawn, 7 k however, because i t was considered too severe. Obviously the small producers continued to c o n s t i t u t e a powerful vot ing b l o c . B i l l 38 to control mi lk-as a p u b l i c uti1 i ty.became law in A p r i l , . 1946 and became operat ive three months la te r when the War Time Pr ices and Trade Board.control was l i f t e d . . Prov is ion was made fo r a one-man Milk Board. E . C . Car r , who had been Mi lk Sales C o n t r o l l e r in p Saskatchewan, was appointed Commissioner. Carr not only had experience in milk marketing c o n t r o l , he was a lso neutral in his a f f i l i a t i o n s and was therefore in a much better p o s i t i o n to represent the in teres ts of a l l groups concerned - - producers," d i s t r i b u t o r s and consumers. By making such an appointment, the government avoided many of the problems of the pre-war period when representat ion on the membership of the Mi lk Board created c o n f l i c t among Cooperative members, independent 7 5 producers and independent d e a l e r s . The bas ic p r i n c i p l e that the in teres ts of a p a r t i c u l a r group should receive representat ion had not been departed from, however. Treat ing milk as a p u b l i c u t i l i t y was an attempt to protect the consumer. The b i l l to control creameries and d a i r i e s , which would best have served the pub l i c i n t e r e s t , was wi thdrawn. As government subs id ies were removed, the Mi lk Board f ixed pr ices to the producer and the consumer. Increases in p r i c e necessary in the i n f l a t i o n a r y post-war period were decided upon by the Milk Commissioner a f te r a pub l ic inquiry was h e l d . The independents continued to p e t i t i o n for higher pr ices for f l u i d milk and the F . V . M . P . A . continued to oppose increases , c la iming that lower consumption of milk would r e s u l t . The Cooperative members, in a much stronger f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n a f te r . the ' prosperous war years , knew that the best hope for increasing the i r share of the f l u i d market lay in expansion of that .market . Any cont rac t ion would force the Cooperative to d i v e r t more milk into manufactured products with the inev i tab le depressing e f f e c t on the s e t t l i n g ra te . Pr ices for many goods were r i s i n g s teadi1y, almost unnot iced, but the pub l ic meetings c a l l e d by the Mi lk Board st imulated great in te res t in the need for p r i c e r i ses in the cost of mi lk . Alderman Anna Sprott of Vancouver ca r r i ed on an ac t ive campaign against higher pr ices on behalf of the people she championed, : the major i ty of the wage earners in B . C . , along with old age government pensioners , .other pensioners , annuity groups, and a large segment of our over-45 year workers. . . have a d i f f i c u l t time to.meet expenses and are forced to l i v e in a sub-standard s ta te much below the cost of 1 iving.75 In response to consumer pressure , spearheaded by Alderman Spro t t , the Mi lk Board was increased to include. Hubert K ing, a U . B . C . p r o f e s s o r , and Mrs. Rex Eaton, a Vancouver housewife. This return to the representat ive p r i n c i p l e destroyed the i m p a r t i a l i t y of the Mi lk Board. Within the milk industry there was a return to the b i t t e r competi t ion of the depression p e r i o d . Fixed pr ices of milk to .producer and consumer prevented p r i c e - c u t t i n g at the r e t a i l l e v e l , but in order to secure f l u i d milk o rders , d i s t r i b u t o r s of fered ice-cream f r e e z e r s , low in teres t loans and c u t - r a t e pr ices on ice-cream to r e t a i l o u t l e t s . Restaurants and hosp i ta ls which c a l l e d for tenders received milk at p r ices much below r e t a i l . In the f a l l of 1951, Canada 76 Safeway appl ied for a reduction in the p r ice of milk so ld through s t o r e s , and announced that plans had been made to b u i l d a milk p l a n t . 7 7 This threat of increased competit ion i n t e n s i f i e d demands for sk ip -a -day de l i ve ry in order to cut production c o s t s . The B.C. Milk Board announced the abandonment of a f ixed p r i c e of milk to the consumer, the retent ion of a minimum pr ice to the producer and the allowance of sk ip -a -day . ,. .78 de l ive ry. Such an outcry greeted th is announcement of control of the r e t a i l 79 pr ice of milk that i t was not implemented. It was not only d i s t r i b u t o r s who were concerned. The B.C. Dairymen's Assoc ia t ion a lso pe t i t ioned both the Mi lk Board and the p r o v i n c i a l cabinet to re ta in contro l over 80 the r e t a i l p r ice of mi lk . The Milk Board worked with d i s t r i b u t o r s 81 to cut costs by e l im ina t ing over lapping milk routes. Mi lk Board order 37 permitted the sa le of milk in stores at 1<J below the p r ice of home-de1ivered. mi 1k. This was too small a concession for those concerned about the decrease in the consumption of milk in Vancouver in s p i t e of the rapid 82 populat ion growth. Dr. Joseph Blumes, Vancouver d e n t i s t , began a campaign for f ree milk in schoo ls . Alderman Sprott not only supported lower pr ices but began a campaign for hooded caps on milk b o t t l e s . These demands increased the pressure on d i s t r i b u t o r s . With the change of government in the summer of 1952, Kenneth Kiernan became Min is ter of A g r i c u l t u r e . Though his wife belonged to a pioneer 83 farm fami ly , Kiernan was a garage mechanic whose knowledge of a g r i c u l t u r a l problems was minimal. On'assuming o f f i c e he was struck by the numerous c o n f l i c t i n g claims in the representat ions that were made 8k to him on the milk quest ion . He set up a uniform accounting system Or among d i s t r i b u t o r s , began a care fu l study of the problems, and post -poned any dec is ion on d e c o n t r o l ^ unt i l a f te r the 1953 e l e c t i o n which gave the government a comfortable major i ty . A p u b l i c hearing fol lowed the e l e c t i o n . Canada Safeway pressed for decontrol and for permission to s e l l carton milk 2<j below de l ivered milk p r i c e s . This would be p o s s i b l e i f Safeway received permission to 87 b u i l d i ts own milk p lan t . R.W. B a r t l e t t , professor of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics at the Un ivers i ty of I l l i n o i s , Chicago, t e s t i f y i n g for Safeway at the hear ing , stated that "wholesale p r i c e f i x i n g l ega l i zes i n -88 e f f i c i e n c y . " Throughout th is period there was considerable controversy over the issue of decont ro l . J . R . Gould, counsel for eleven milk d i s t r i b u t o r s and D.R. N icho lson , on behalf of the F . V . M . P . A . , urged that 89 control be maintained. Both predicted that decontrol would resu l t in chaot ic marketing condi t ions which would eventual ly harm the producer. Other groups supported th is view. Mi lk d r ive rs protested chain, s tore 90 p r i c i n g p o l i c i e s and p o l i t i c a l leaders were c r i t i c a l of d e c o n t r o l . Arthur La ing , leader of the L ibera l par ty , urged a p r o t e c t i o n i s t , p o l i c y 91 for a g r i c u l t u r e . E . E . Winch, C C F . member of the l e g i s l a t u r e , pre-d ic ted that the drop in p r ice which would fo l low decontrol would e l iminate the small man. Once the large operators had a' monopoly, 92 pr ices would r i s e aga in . Spokesmen for the consumer supported d e c o n t r o l . Alderman Spro t t , Chairman of the Socia l Services Committee on the Vancouver C i ty C o u n c i l , 93 favored the Safeway Store p l a n . E d i t o r i a l s in the Province con-s i s t e n t l y supported Safeway p o l i c i e s . The e d i t o r declared the removal 94 of p r i c e contro ls ,to be "a good healthy, experiment for a l l concerned." He was convinced that "too much tampering with the natural laws of economics had created more problems in the milk business than i t had s o l v e d . " 9 5 ,,96 Kiernan declared his aim to be "maximum order with minimum c o n t r o l . " On September 14, 1953 he implemented decontrol at the r e t a i l l e v e l . The p r ice of milk to the producer was set at $5-03 per hundred pounds of 3-5% bu t te r fa t milk and $1.96 for milk used for manufacture. Quota regulat ions were introduced which f ixed the amounts of milk each producer was allowed to ship to the f l u i d market, to be based on his shipment for a three-month period previous to February 15, 1954. Vigorous protests at th is move.to e s t a b l i s h a quota without warning resul ted in quotas being set over a six-month per iod . There was no attempt to equal ize the market. The quotas were based on the d i s t r i b u t o r s ' current share of the market, but dairymen increased t h e i r production in order to secure as large an ind iv idua l quota as p o s s i b l e . The tremendous milk f lood which r e s u l t e d , increased the surplus and added to the ser ious problems in the milk industry . Though plans to operate a milk processing plant were postponed when the Milk Board refused to grant a permit for th is purpose, Canada Safeway began to s e l l milk in stores for 20<J- Operating under the Pub l ic U t i l i t y A c t , as i t d i d , the main concern of the Milk Board was pub l ic convenience and n e c e s s i t y . It was on the basis of th is c r i t e r i o n that 97 issuance of a permit to Safeway was re fused. The company continued to purchase suppl ies from Richmond Mi 1k Producers' Cooperat ive . A f te r hearing appeals from Safeway and from other Vancouver d i s t r i b u t o r s who fought Safeway's a p p l i c a t i o n , the government gave permission for 98 the plant to be b u i l t , over ru l ing the Mi lk Board order . The Lucerne Milk Company, a subs id ia ry to Safeway, entered into and i n t e n s i f i e d the competit ion on the f l u i d market. , A Mi lk Board order required d i s t r i b u t o r s to be bonded in order to protect producers and guarantee the f ixed p r i c e of $5-03 per hundred-weight. This order was protested by several dealers who found the f ixed pr ice d i f f i c u l t to maintain as competit ion increased a f t e r de-c o n t r o l . Everett Crowley, president and manager of Avalon Da i ry , refused to take out a l i c e n s e . A p o l i c e court conv ic t ion was appealed and the p r o v i n c i a l o rder - in -counc i1 requ i r ing bonding was declared ul tra vi res . The judge instructed the Milk Board to issue a l i cense to the d a i r y . The intent of the Publ ic U t i l i t i e s Act was to protect the consumer rather than the producer. The bonding arrangement, according to the judge, was designed to protect the producer and "does 99 not carry out any purpose expressed by the a c t . " It had become evident that i t was impossible to control the milk industry under the Publ ic U t i1 i t i es A c t . Vancouver milk d i s t r i b u t o r s reported a loss of almost a cent on every quart of milk they sold during the f i r s t three months of de-c o n t r o l . ^ ^ The F .V .M.P .A . maintained that i t a lso found the $5.03 p r i c e impossible to pay. As a cooperat ive i t deducted expenses and d iv ided the p r o f i t s among the members. The j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Publ ic U t i l i t i e s Act and that of the Cooperative Assoc ia t ions Act were in c o n f l i c t . Considerable resentment was f e l t that the A s s o c i a t i o n was not paying the p r i c e f ixed, by the Milk Board. By September,.1954 eight milk agencies were f a i l i n g to pay the f ixed p r i c e for m i lk . When Magistrate Scott dismissed a charge against the Mi lk Shippers ' Agency for f a i l i n g to pay i t s members in accordance with the prov is ions of orders 40 and .41-of the Mi lk Board, i t became evident that though the Milk Board had the power to set pr ices under the Pub l ic U t i l i t i e s A c t , i t could not enforce them. To suggest that the milk industry was in a chaot ic s tate is sure ly a mirac le of understatement. In response to a Milk Board order (Order 46) requi r ing that every primary producer be furnished with a statement showing but te r fa t t e s t , to ta l weight, p r i c e , t o t a l . v a l u e and deduct ions, the F .V .M .P .A . issued a statement to i ts shipping members which inc luded, under deduct ions, an item l i s t e d as "decrease in. returns due to d e c o n t r o l . " 1 The Milk Board re ta1 i a ted . to th is rather arrogant gesture by issu ing Order 48 which r igorous ly l imi ted charges that could be deducted. Kiernan admitted that decontrol had not worked out as he had 102 expected. He became increas ing ly unpopular with d i s t r i b u t o r s who were los ing money and with farmers s t rugg l ing to increase the i r quota. He explained to a farmers' meeting that " i t was his duty' 1 to see the 103 milk problem from where a l l the people s t a n d . " D.R. N icho lson , president of the F . V . M . P . A . , took issue with th is statement. "Is i t too much for a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s to expect the i r min is ter to look at . . . 104 a g r i c u l t u r a l problems from an a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t ' s viewpoint?" he demanded. Kiernan was.groping f o r . s o l u t i o n s to unfami1 iar problems, but his understanding of his r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to " a l l the people" stood him in bet ter stead than experience .as a.farmer or a c a b i n e t min is ter could poss ib ly have done. i v In September, 195^ K i e r n a n , . r e a l i z i n g the complexity of the problems, appointed J u s t i c e J . V . Clyne as Commissioner to conduct an inves t iga t ion into a l l aspects of the supply , production and marketing of mi lk . Hearings were begun immediately. Farmers, d i s t r i b u t o r s and consumers proved only too w i l l i n g to give evidence. Books were opened, f igures provided and long-standing grievances a i r e d . The c o n f l i c t s were ev ident , but though there were many tense moments during the hear ings, there was common agreement in the des i re to f ind a s o l u t i o n . It became evident that the large surplus (twice as much milk as was required for f l u i d consumption was being produced) created the problem which had caused unrest for nearly for ty years . The var ious arguments were presented. Cooperative . representat ives. stated that a small group of farmers received a .d isproport ionate share of a government guaranteed pr ice whi le Cooperative members who absorbed the surplus were forced o f f the market they pro tec ted . . This was countered by the a l l e g a t i o n that many farmers d id .not deserve the r i g h t . t o ship to the f l u i d market because of the i r f a i l u r e to adhere to san i ta ry r e g u l a t i o n s . The inves t iga t ion revealed that the barn inspect ion system had broken down in the Fraser Va l ley and there were a considerable number of farms where condi t ions were unsanitary and milk of p o o r - q u a l i t y was being shipped to the flu-id market. - S t r i c t e r cont ro ls were implemented immediately and a number of producers prevented from sh ipp ing . 11 was apparent that the'F.V .M.P .A. with i ts open membership had shel tered many poor farmers. It a lso became ev ident , however, that the F . V . M . P . A . was supplying milk to many d i s t r i b u t o r s who had switched the i r custom to the Cooperative in order to obtain a supply 106 of good q u a l i t y milk in s u f f i c i e n t ; q u a n t i t y . The Cooperative had formed in response to increasing i n d u s t r i -a l i z a t i o n . Individual producers cou1d.not pasteur ize the i r milk and other processing and marketing could .be done more e f f i c i e n t l y through c o l l e c t i v e act ion or 1 arge sea 1e opera t ions . Some small producers were able to s u r v i v e , not because of the i r e f f i c i e n c y , but because they played on a widely held b e l i e f that "raw" milk was good milk and that " d i r t y " milk required p a s t e u r i z a t i o n . The implementation of the Dairy Products Sales Adjustment Act increased the number of producer-vendors and the e f f e c t s of the F .V .M .P .A . to e l iminate r e t a i l e r s gave impetus to th is type of propaganda. The fac t that the increasing demands of an urbanized soc ie ty were e l imina t ing the small independent producer expla ins why the Cooperat ive, by q u i e t l y negot ia t ing with the dealers and by provid ing a steady supply of pasteurized mi lk , had more success in gain ing a share of the f l u i d market during the 1940's and 1950's than i t had in re ta in ing i t through less subt le aggression in the 1920's and 1930 's. The argument of the independents thad they had'earned" the r ight to the market was exposed as a f a l l a c y . Bas i l Gardom admitted that the amount of milk an independent producer could get on the market depended more on the exert ions of his d i s t r i b u t o r than on his o w n . 1 0 7 The argument that the independent producer maintained a more cons is tent supply than the members of the Cooperative was refuted by the evidence that in 1939 independent d i s t r i b u t o r s were forced to buy 92,100 pounds of but ter fa t from the Cooperative and in each succeeding year the 108 amount had increased un t i l i t reached 1,621,000 pounds in 19^7. The fac t that the F . V . M . P . A . supplemented the supply of independents in th is way e f f e c t i v e l y exploded the myth of super ior q u a l i t y . The Commissioner d iscussed reasons the independent producers had achieved a greater share of the market. He suggested.that "personal connect ion , i,109 ind iv idua l en terpr ise or greater se rv ice could be poss ib le causes, but he touched on these matters very l i g h t l y . For Cooperative members with b i t t e r memories of d i s t r i b u t o r propaganda, the .des t ruc t ion of the "earned market" myth must have been very s a t i s f y i n g . Having es tab l ished that a l l producers had a r ight to share the f l u i d market i f the i r milk was of a uniform high standard, the Commissioner ins is ted that the law should apply equal ly to a l l . The F .V .M .P .A . took the p o s i t i o n that the Cooperative should receive a corporate quota which would then be d iv ided on a pooled b a s i s . The Cooperative was f i g h t i n g to maintain the r ight i t had under the Cooperative Assoc ia t ions Act to deduct expenses and return the p r o f i t to . i t s members. Th is released the A s s o c i a t i o n from i ts o b l i g a t i o n to maintain the guaranteed pr ice to the producer and enabled i t to-compete against companies l i k e Lucerne which geared production to the f l u i d market. In present ing arguments for the F . V . M . P . A . , the i r representat ives did not admit that th is was t h e i r purpose. They spoke instead of. the importance of the member's contract and the bas ic p r i n c i p l e s of cooperat ion . They argued that a f ixed consumer p r i c e would prevent Da i ry land , the F . V . M . P . A . r e t a i l o u t l e t , from taking un fa i r advantage of i ts compet i tors . This argument the Commissioner refused to accept . He had found the f ixed consumer p r i c e in e f f e c t from 19^8 to 1953 to be "a blanket under which a l l kinds of unwholesome prac t ices f l o u r i s h e d " and he f e l t that the government should not al low th is to cont inue. The Commissioner expressed dismay that both the independent and the Cooperative member should continue to argue — one that i t had won the r ight to a market, the other , that i t should be exempt from the 111 law which appl ied to o thers . The Commissioner predicted that the surplus production of milk which created the problems in the milk industry would disappear wi th in t h i r t y years . Though he f e l t inc l ined to leave the feuding .producers to the i r f a t e , he rea l i zed i t was imperative to overcome the d i f f i c u l t i e s . . He found f o u r . p r i c e s being paid for milk which was, in the main, of the same qua l i t y - - the f ixed board pr ices of $5-03 f o r f l u i d and $1.96 for m i l k . f o r manufacture and the F .V .M .P .A . pr ices of $4.25 for f l u i d and $3.00 for manufactured mi lk . There was a lso a pr ice -spread between the average return of $3.40 per hundredweight to F.V.M.P.A. shippers and $4.12 per hundred-weight to independents. I ne f f i c ien t farmers were being subsid ized by the contro l led p r i c e , thus l o w e r i n g t h e income df good producers in his o p i n i o n . The d i s t r i b u t i n g end of the business was in ser ious f i n a n c i a l d i f f i c u l t y as a resu l t of excessive compet i t ion. D i s t r i b u t i o n costs were h i g h , . b u t the guaranteed p r ice 'spread had apparently discouraged e f f o r t s to introduce economies in th is a rea . The cost of r e t a i l milk in B r i t i s h Columbia had become the highest in Canada and the consumption of f l u i d milk now the lowest. Commissioner Clyne recommended that the seven d i f f e r e n t laws which deal t with the milk industry should be c o d i f i e d into one law. He suggested that control of consumer p r i c e had been a f a i l u r e and should not be attempted. Producer . .pr ice, however, should be c o n t r o l l e d and should be determined by a formula which would recognize a measure of change in .producer costs and in the purchasing power of money i t would 112 a lso contain a supply-demand adjustment f a c t o r . Only farmers meeting high standards and producing milk of good q u a l i t y should be l icensed to ship to the f l u i d market, but a l l farmers meeting those standards , should be allowed the i r proport ionate share of that market. Quotas shou.ld be based on a market-wide basis rather than on the basis of d i s t r i b u t o r pooIs. It had always been assumed that the creat ion of a s i n g l e agency would be necessary i f the f l u i d market was to be e q u a l i z e d . This would destroy the Cooperative which had come to mean so much to the farmers who had b u i l t i t for the i r own p r o t e c t i o n . By implementing a formula and f i x i n g producer p r ice to i t , , the Cooperative could be allowed to reta in i ts i d e n t i t y . Though the F . V . M . P . A . had employed r e s t r a i n t in using the power i t possessed to break the market, as a cooperat ive deducting costs and returning the p r o f i t s to the producer, i t had that power. Only a f ixed p r ice to the producer could provide a guaranteed r e s t r a i n t . The bas ic p r i n c i p l e of the Clyne Commission repor t , that every d a i r y -man producing good q u a l i t y milk should share e q u a l l y . t h e f l u i d market and the burden of looking a f te r the s u r p l u s , was, in essence, the goal of the t h i r t y farmers who had organized in 1913- The s o l u t i o n , . o n c e i t was found, seemed to be a simple one , ,but a great deal o f . c r e d i t must go to-Commissioner C l y n e ' f o r f ind ing a way.of s t ra igh ten ing -out the " l e g i s l a t i v e and admin is t ra t ive muddle" which Kiernan claimed he had 113 i n h e r i t e d . Clyne had made use of expert a d v i c e , not o n l y . i n the da i ry ing and marketing f i e l d , but a l s o in the legal f i e l d . He had requested that the Hon. T . G . Norr is be appointed Counsel to the Commissioner. Both men became reasonably c e r t a i n that v a l i d marketing l e g i s l a t i o n could be drawn up. The outcome of the Clyne Commission report was a defeat for the independents. But the i r numbers were d e c l i n i n g as a resu l t of changes in methods of a g r i c u l t u r e . Short ly a f t e r World War II most of the producer-vendors were put .out of business with the implementation of pas teur i za t ion in urban areas through municipal by- laws. The I .M.P.C.A. dwindled to e ight sh ippers . The Richmond Mi 1k Producers' Cooperative A s s o c i a t i o n with 48 members was dependent on Safeway. The Milk Shippers 1 Agency with i ts 242 producers was in a stronger p o s i t i o n but dependent to a large extent on i ts customer, Palm D a i r i e s . The p o s i t i o n of the Cooperative members was v a s t l y improved. " 11 :.i s~ my ; cons i dered o p i n i o n , " sa id D.R. N i c h o l s o n , . F . V . M . P . A . p res iden t , "that J u s t i c e C lyne 's report is the greatest j u d i c i a l v i n d i c a t i o n of l e g i s l a t i v e and regulated m a r k e t i n g o f a g r i c u l t u r a l products that 114 Canada has ever heard or s e e n . " The labor in terests were s a t i s f i e d with the report . George Shaw of the Milk D r i v e r s ' Union expressed s a t i s f a c t i o n . t h a t . t h e new formula would mean that as farmers' costs increased, the p r i c e to the producer would fol low a u t o m a t i c a l l y . ^ ^ No longer would milk pr ices be d iscussed in open forum with var ious in terest groups apply ing. .pressure. Since increases in wages was one of the important fac tors in pushing up c o s t s , the men who de l ivered the milk were in an insecure p o s i t i o n . Clyne had found that the wages paid to d r ive rs compared favorably with 116 those paid in other t rades . It seems evident that the Cooperative had led the way. Palm Dai r ies paid the i r Vancouver d r ive rs a considerably higher wage than they paid in other parts of Canada where they operated. J . J . Brown r e c a l l s that i t came as a shock to most Cooperative members t o . r e a l i z e that i f they demanded a f a i r p r ice for mi lk , they must accede to the demands of the Mi lk Dr ive rs ' Union. The consumers, whose voice Clyne said was f a i n t l y heard, could only hope that the Commission recommendations would prove b e n e f i c i a l . Alderman Spro t t , who c a r r i e d on- the i r b a t t l e , had f requent ly been proven to be using inaccurate f igures to support her claims that the farmer was "mi lk ing" the c i t y customer. When the farmers' case was presented, she usua l ly agreed that his p l igh t was as real as that of the consumer and so blamed the d i s t r i b u t o r . When the Clyne Commission revealed that the d i s t r i b u t o r s were in ser ious f i n a n c i a l d i s t r e s s , i t was obvious that attempts to control the milk industry in the in teres ts of the consumer had not succeeded under the Publ ic U t i l i t i e s A c t . The government drew up l e g i s l a t i o n based on the Clyne Commission recommendations. In 1956 the Mi lk Industry Act was passed. It was re ferred to the courts and was found to be v a l i d by the B r i t i s h Columbia Court of Appeal . ^ 7 Wi l l iam Crawford, H i 11 s ide Da i ry and H i l l s i d e Farm Dairy Limited appealed the dec is ion to the Supreme Court of Canada which upheld the judgment'and declared the Act to be wi th in the 118 competence of the B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . l e g i s l a t u r e . By e s t a b l i s h i n g one c l a s s of producer and equa l i z ing the market rather than the re turns , the government protected i t s e l f from being accused of making lev ies which could be considered ind i rec t taxat ion or a "co lourab le device for equa l i z ing r e t u r n s . " Nevertheless the producers' p r i c e , set by the Board, was a melded pr ice a r r i ved at by pool ing the p r ice of milk used on the f l u i d market and milk used for manufacturing, which was subject to world p r i c e s ; The vendor who received a balance in hand over the producers' p r ice was required to pay th is to the Board. If most of the milk was sold on the manufacturing market, the Board.would make up the d i f f e r e n c e to him. A l l producers of q u a l i f y i n g milk shared the high and the low p r i c e markets. The l e g i s l a t i o n had been found v a l i d because a lawful means of equa l i z ing had been d iscovered . Methods of equa l i za t ion had been found, i n v a l i d in both the Crysta l Dairy and the Turner Dairy cases, however. It is d i f f i c u l t not to conclude that the Mi lk Industry Act was found i ntra vi res not because methods of e q u a l i z a t i o n could be proven to be l e g a l l y c o r r e c t , but because the Clyne Commission Report had exposed the very real need for control in the milk indust ry . The judges had no compunction i n : d e c l a r i n g . t h e Act to be, " in i ts p i th and substance a s ta tute to regulate d i s t r i b u t i o n and marketing of milk and manufactured milk products wi th in B r i t i s h Columbia and. . . wi th in 119 the competence of the L e g i s l a t u r e . " The quest ion of whether or not the Act in f r inged upon the j u r i s -d i c t i o n of the parliament of Canada.in r e l a t i o n to trade and commerce was not argued. T h e - A g r i c u l t u r a l Marketing A c t , passed A p r i l 30, 19^9 by the federal par l iament , granted author i ty to p r o v i n c i a l boards to 1 20 exerc ise powers of regula t ion outs ide the prov ince . Th is Act was 121 found to be u l t r a v i res by the Pr ince Edward Island Supreme Cour t , but an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, resu1 ted in a reversal of the dec is ion .and the Act was declared to.be in t ra v i r e s . "It is not a tenable argument that the p r o v i n c i a l Board has no capaci ty , to accept 122 and exerc ise the federal a u t h o r i t y , " declared the judges. The long s t ruggle to achieve order ly marketing and to gain e q u a l i z -a t ion of the market came to an end with the passage of the Mi lk Industry A c t . Many of the da i ry farmers gave c r e d i t to the Min is te r of A g r i c u l t u r e , Kenneth Kiernan, and he had no d i f f i c u l t y in being returned term a f te r term in h is Fraser Va l ley r i d i n g , even a f te r he had l e f t A g r i c u l t u r e for another p o r t f o l i o . There is no doubt that Kiernan attacked the problems in the milk industry with energy and determination, but the time was ripe for solutions., The federal Agriculture Act and the decision in the Shannon case gave the province the necessary authority to^cpntrol marketing. Considerable experience was needed in using this authority. It was not until the milk industry had reached ' a chaotic state with both producers and distributors in financial d i f f i c u l t i e s that control led marketing became generally acceptable. It was not until a l l producers were paid on the same.basis that the milk board, no longer reflecting strains among-producers, gained popular acceptance. The Cooperative which for so many years had stabilized the fluid market continued to prove its value. Time and again its surplus was diverted to the fluid market when other producers failed to provide an adequate supply and its manufacturing plants Were pressed into , service when severe weather conditions prevented shipment of milk to Vancouver. Dr. Leland Spencer, who had a wide knowledge,of cooperatives on the North American continent,;'was surprised at the strength of the F.V.M.P.A..and its abi l i t y to maintain a large and loyal 123 membership. The fact that thesurplus was so much greater than in other areas of the continent was undoubtedly a factor in forcing farmers to remain within the Cooperative in order to stabilize the fluid market. Any attempt to equalize that market by what Mercer called 124 a " k i l l i n g off" process led only to bitterness and depressed prices for everyone. If some independent dealers were forced out, new outlets sprang up as soon as the market returned to normal. So the members of the Cooperative struggled on, protecting the fluid market, gaining whatever share they could of it.and placing their hope for a solution in marketing legislation. The farmers who cooperated were as eager for p r o f i t as the prospectors who preceded them had been for g o l d ; They were concerned about the i r own i n t e r e s t s , but by working together they a lso served the da i ry industry , the farmers who refused t o - j o i n them, and every resident in the Fraser Val ley where the economy depended so much on the men who milked the cows. And that , no doubt, is what cooperat ion is a l l about. VI I FRASER VALLEY MILK PRODUCERS' ASSOCIATION: SUCCESSFUL COOPERATIVE Through cooperat ive a c t i o n , farmers were able to strengthen the i r p o s i t i o n in buying, handl ing, manufacturing and marketing goods, and to safeguard the i r i n d i v i d u a l i t y as producers. Of the thousands of a g r i c u l t u r a l cooperat ives which mushroomed in North America in the second decade of the twentieth century , a high percentage f a i l e d . James E. Boy le , d i s c u s s i n g the reasons, s ta ted : Cooperatives have f a i l e d where they have undertaken to guarantee cost of production plus a p r o f i t , where they have f ixed pr ices under a temporary monopoly power, where they have been overpromoted, where they have been too h ighly c e n t r a l i z e d , where.they have been e x t r a -vagantly managed, where they have increased the specu la t ive r isks of the business and where they have v i o l a t e d the laws of farmer psychology or the p r i n c i p l e s of good business management. The Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n had avoided a l l of Boy le 's p i t f a l l s . Many fac tors account for th is success . In the Fraser V a l l e y , the nature of the short f r o n t i e r p e r i o d , with i ts rapid t r a n s i t i o n from a gold to a lumber f r o n t i e r , provided the farmer with loca l markets and cash re turns . The development of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , fol lowed by rapid urban growth, opened d is tan t markets and enlarged local ones. Revolut ionary changes in the da i ry ing industry allowed farmers to increase production and thus take advantage of marketing o p p o r t u n i t i e s . Such condi t ions created a vigorous farm popula t ion , unwi11ing to to le ra te di f f i cul t i es . Many cooperat ive ventures and farmers' groups; formed for var ious reasons, provided experience in j o i n t - a c t i o n and a proving ground f o r . leaders . As da i ry ing became the most important a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y in the V a l l e y , the gradual conso l ida t ion of regional organizat ions into the Val ley-wide a s s o c i a t i o n provided a f i rm basis for the co-operat ive which emerged to control milk marketing. Barrow a t t r ibu ted the success of the F .V .M .P .A . to . the fact that regional organiza t ion 2 had preceded organiza t ion by commodity. As the years passed i t became increas ing ly evident that the success of the Cooperative depended to a large degree on the strength of the l o c a l s , which provided a forum for ind iv idua l members to a i r gr ievances , d iscuss p o l i c y and o r i g i n a t e ideas. Important dec is ions were made at general meetings, but'always a f te r a great deal of d iscuss ion at the local - l e v e l . . As the business became la rger , i t became more d i f f i c u l t to fo l low. the ear ly p r a c t i c e of r e f e r r i n g most things back to the l o c a l s . A Senate or Council of . Locals was set up, composed of the local presidents and s e c r e t a r i e s . This group met quar ter ly and estab l ished a l i n e of communication between members and the i r execut ive . • . Many of the dangers out 1ined by Boyle had been avoided by the F .V .M .P .A . because of shrewd leadership capable .o f guiding but always responsive to the membership. Among, the t h i r t y charter members of the Cooperative were a number of men who were ho t .on ly very strong leaders , but who a lso possessed d i f f e r i n g qua 1 i t i e s . . The hard-headed, b u s i n e s s l i k e approach of J .W. Berry was complemented by the tact of W.J. Park; the s e l f - r e l i a n c e of John O l i v e r by the v i s i o n of E.D. Barrow; the enthusiasm of C H . Evans by the business a b i l i t y of C E . Ecker t . A . H . Mercer and W.L. Macken, a f te r long apprent iceships as d i r e c t o r s of the A s s o c i a t i o n , became General Manager and President respect ive ly during the t h i r t i e s . These two men, so very d i f f e r e n t in p e r s o n a l i t y , worked well together to .prov ide f i rm and able leader-ship which c a r r i e d the A s s o c i a t i o n through t ry ing and d i f f i c u l t years . A lec Mercer, born in Ontario" in•1878, was e lected a d i r e c t o r of the Ch i l l iwack Creamery in 1909 to f i l l a vacancy created by the death of his f a t h e r , one of the f i r s t t rustees of the Cooperat ive. He was among the 848 members who began shipping to the A s s o c i a t i o n in 1917 and he was e lected d i r e c t o r in 1920, a p o s i t i o n he held unti1 1934 when he was defeated, not so much by d e p r e s s i o n - b i t t e r farmers who voted against him as by the major i ty , made apathet ic by hard t imes, who neglected to vote at a l l . The d i r e c t o r s , conf ident that the membership would accept t h e i r , d e c i s i o n , appointed Mercer as General Manager, a p o s i t i o n he held u n t i l 1961. Mercer was "noted for his a b i l i t y to h o l d . h i s own in any kind of 3 controversy from milk to p o l i t i c s . " It was his success in deal ing with opponents in a fo rce fu l and often humorous way that most-del ighted .1 many farmers. During the long b i t t e r years , Mercer 1 s pi thy remarks, f requent ly d i rec ted at wrangling members in annual meetings but more often hurled at independents in open forum, were re to ld count less times Toward the end of his long ca ree r , a d e s c r i p t i o n of Mercer in But ter fa t paid t r ibu te not only to h is "sound i n t e g r i t y " and " s i n c e r e , k indly 5 c h a r a c t e r , " but a lso to his "devastat ing wit and platform acumen." This assessment of Mercer is corroborated by the r e c o l l e c t i o n s of many re t i red cooperat ive members. When quer ied , they chuckle as they reca l l h is sharp wit and they speak with warmth of his frank manner and f r i e n d l y concern. Independents speak d i f f e r e n t l y , however; they make no secret of the i r d i s l i k e for a man whom they remember as merc i less in o p p o s i t i o n . It was undoubtedly th is element of tough-ness in his character as much as his k indly nature which made Mercer an e f f e c t i v e leader. Wi l l iam Lyle Macken, President of the F . V . M . P . A . , was born in F o r e s t , Ontario in 1882 and there completed his high school education and trained as an accountant. He came to Ch i l l iwack in 1900, worked on a farm, c lerked in a feed store and then operated a pub l ic book-keeping business f o r . s e v e r a l years . In 1911 he became an assoc ia te of F . J . Hart , a New Westminster r e a l t o r , and in 1915 bought out the bus iness , changing the name to Home Makers Real ty . He was president of the Ch i l l iwack Telephone Company, 7 and a partner in two successfu l lumber companies - - Col 1ins-Macken and Freeland-Macken. He was president of the Associated Boards of Trade of B r i t i s h Columbia, a d i r e c t o r of the Canadian Lumberman's A s s o c i a t i o n , and in.1927 he was the B r i t i s h Columbia member of the National Immigration Committee of the g Canadian Chamber.of Commerce. Macken was ac t ive in a wide range of community a c t i v i t i e s which extended from campaigning for the P a t r i o t i c Fund during World War I to serving on a two-man rehab i1 i t a t ion commission a f t e r the 19^8 f l o o d . In 1907 he was s e c r e t a r y - t r e a s u r e r of the Ch i l l iwack Creamery, a p o s i t i o n 9 which he f i l l e d to the s a t i s f a c t i o n of the members. He ran as Conserv-a t ive candidate in the p r o v i n c i a l e lect ion ' of 1916, los ing to E.D. Barrow a f te r what the Chi 11 iwack Progress ca 11 ed a " l i v e l y c a m p a i g n . " ^ Macken did not run a g a i n , but his c lose a f f i l i a t i o n with the Conservat ive party was of advantage to t h e . A s s o c i a t i o n . It was Macken who wrote the Dairy Products Sales Adjustment Act in 1929 which embodied the p r i n c i p l e s of equa l i za t ion of the market recommended by the Mi lk Inquiry Commission of 1928. Macken was not a farmer, nor d id he ever pretend to be. According to the rules of the A s s o c i a t i o n , only producers could be members of the F .V .M .P .A . This rule was circumvented when a herd was es tab l ished in his name. Cows belonging to W.L. Macken invar iab ly made a good showing in Cow Test ing A s s o c i a t i o n records , but he had nothing to do with th is success . He was a businessman and as such made his c o n t r i -bution to an a s s o c i a t i o n which was of enormous" importance to the community to which he belonged. It was undoubtedly Macken's in terest and constant involvement in community a f f a i r s which expla in his long a s s o c i a t i o n with the Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n . As s e c r e t a r y - t r e a s u r e r of the Ch i l l iwack Creamery, he had gained a good understanding of the problems of the da i ry farmers. It is not s u r p r i s i n g that he was asked to become a d i r e c t o r in 1923 during a period when c o n f l i c t between cooperat ive members and independents was intense and the F .V .M .P .A . was launching an extensive b u i l d i n g program. He took part with Park and other d i r e c t o r s in the h ighly successfu l membership dr ive that year , and with Mercer led a delegat ion of two hundred farmers to the V i c t o r i a l e g i s l a t u r e in March, 1929 to urge the passage of the Dairy .Products Sales Adjustment Ac t . He was manager of Associated Dai r ies from 1933 un t i l 19^8 and president of the F . V . M . P . A . from 1935 u n t i l 19^8 when i l l health forced his r e t i r e -ment from both p o s i t i o n s . 1 1 ' Many s t o r i e s have been told about Ly le Macken; some of them became legends in his own l i f e time. Probably to an outs ider attempting to assess his c o n t r i b u t i o n , the most convincing proof of his a b i l i t y is the luc id manner in which, in issue a f t e r issue o f . B u t t e r f a t , he explained to the membership the p o l i c i e s of the A s s o c i a t i o n . Even Mrs. Bas i l Gardom, widow of one of the F . V . M . P . A . ' s b i t t e r enemies, 12 had considerable respect for Macken s - a b i 1 i t y , and Everett Crowley, adamant opponent of marketing 1 egis1 a t i o n , . found him to be an honest 13 man. The e d i t o r of B u t t e r f a t , who was with the "two hundred" at V i c t o r i a in March, 1929, pr inted a comment made by a man he i d e n t i f i e d only as an "outstanding lawyer." You fe l lows don't need anyone e l s e but Macken. to present your case . I l i s tened to him before the A g r i c u l t u r a l Committee the other day, and I can honestly say that never in a l l my l i f e have I l i s tened to a plea that was so impassioned and yet so c o l d l y l o g i c a l . . , . It was not only his a b i l i t y to give leadership in formulat ing and d i r e c t i n g p o l i c y that made Macken such an asset to the Cooperat ive; i t was a l s o the d i g n i t y and firmness with which he maintained control at A s s o c i a t i o n meetings where b i t t e r disputes were common. A member at the annual meeting in Mission in 19^8 is. reported to have commented, "He's worth $1000 a day jus t as chairman of these a f f a i r s . " ^ But Macken apparently did not place undue importance on money. .. One of the Macken legends not only indicates t h i s , but a lso the a b i l i t y he had to inf luence the membership. The inc ident , dramatic enough at the t ime, lost nothing in the r e t e l l i n g . People s t i l l ta lk about the day, years ago, when a sec t ion of the membership decided that Macken would have to go. . He rose in his own defense. They wound up by g iv ing him a cheque in apprec ia t ion of h is serv ices and he refused to a c c e p t . ^ At the Royal Commission hearing in 1954, Macken to ld the Commissioner that he should never have been in the milk b u s i n e s s . 1 7 But he s t a y e d ' i n year a f ter year apparently because he f e l t that the farmers needed him. Macken's personal l i f e was rather sad. His only c h i l d died as a l i t t l e g i r l and h is wife was an i n v a l i d for years . It may be that th is rather reserved man found in the c lose bonds which the Cooperative forged among i ts members some compensation for the family he was denied and the l imi ted companionship his wife was able to give him. "You have been very kind in your expressions of regret at my l e a v i n g , " he sa id in c l o s i n g his l as t speech as president of the Co-opera t ive , "but be assured my f r i e n d s , I w i l l miss you i n f i n i t e l y more than you w i l l miss me ." 1 ^ Macken 1s part ing advice to Cooperative members was that young men employed by the Assoc ia t ion should be encouraged to expect advancement i f they showed promise and he urged the farmers to expect to pay for 19 serv ices as other businesses d i d . It was the task of the d i r e c t o r s to choose the next president from among themselves, and they e lec ted D.R. N icholson, , a Mount Lehman farmer, son of pioneers who had come 20 from Pr ince Edward Is land. He was born on the Mount Lehman homestead 21 in 1893, and as a young man was ac t ive in the F . V . M . P . A . The f i r s t p e n c i l l e d minutes of the Mount Lehman local were wr i t ten in his sprawling hand. In 1930 he became a d i r e c t o r and in 1935, v i c e -p res iden t . His ca ree r , from a youth s c r i b b l i n g minutes in a rural community ha l l to president of a h ighly successfu l bus iness , .spanned the f i f t y y e a r ; period during which the Cooperative members struggled to a t t a in the i r i n i t i a l g o a l s . He headed the Cooperative ably during the period of chaos in the milk industry which preceded the c a l l i n g of the Clyne Commission and handled the d i f f i c u l t annual meetings, the c r u c i a l test for any pres ident , as though "there was nothing to i t . " 2 2 During the 50 's the two key p o s i t i o n s ' i n the F .V .M .P .A . were held by men who had the i r bas ic t ra in ing on farms, in Cooperative loca ls and as d i r e c t o r s . The farmers had proved that they could f ind capable leadership wi th in the i r own ranks . ' A f te r the retirement of Mercer, however, Macken's advice was fo l lowed. . .L .A . Atkinson who became General Manager in 1961 and G . J . Okul i tch who succeeded him in 1966 were both u n i v e r s i t y graduates who star ted the i r careers in the F .V .M .P .A . l a b o r a t o r i e s . The president's who succeeded N icho lson , 23 J . J . Brown, J . C . Brannick and H.S. Berry were a l l farmers and sons of men who had been ear ly and loyal cooperat ive members. The A s s o c i a t i o n had"responded to the pressures which forced farmers into agro- indust ry by combining t ra ined management with fa rmer -cont ro l led d i r e c t i o n . Though there were many fac tors which contr ibuted to the success of the F . V . M . P . A . , good leadership was one of the most important. Without i t , , t h e A s s o c i a t i o n would not have been formed in the f i r s t p lace . Once formed, i t could not have survived the opposi t ion of independent dealers without the determination and dedicat ion of 2k W.J. Park and the group of d i r e c t o r s who served with him in 1923. During the 1920 's, though p o l i c i e s were implemented g r a d u a l l y , the record of the Cooperative for improving the q u a l i t y of the milk product appears to have been qui te good. , The c r e d i t for th is must go to the leadership given by d i r e c t o r s and to the ac t ive support of the more progressive members. An e d i t o r i a l comment in But ter fa t deplored 25 the fac t that members took to innovation s lowly . It seems l i k e l y that without good leadership many would not have taken to i t at a l l . . Once the Assoc ia t ion Journa l was star ted in 1923, good use was made of i t , not only to keep members in . touch with developments wi th in the o r g a n i z a t i o n , but a lso as a means of car ry ing on an a c t i v e educational program. Dozens of a r t i c l e s were p r i n t e d , wr i t ten by Dr. Damman and C E . K e l l y , or. repr inted from other farmer magazines suggesting means by which the q u a l i t y of milk could be improved. Count-less a r t i c l e s urged greater e f f i c i e n c y and descr ibed methods by which i t could be achieved. The resu l ts of the Cow Test ing Assoc ia t ions were pub l ished , and p ic tures were run of pr ize-winning cows and good barns. The p r i n c i p l e s of cooperation .were a lso kept constant ly before the farmer. Always he was reminded that the s a c r i f i c e s he made in accept ing lower returns or submitt ing to san i ta ry regulat ions were in his own long term i n t e r e s t . The d i r e c t o r s did not re ly e n t i r e l y on contact through the j o u r n a l , however. P o l i c i e s were car r ied to the loca ls and discussed so thoroughly that by the time they were implemented every memberthad become c l o s e l y involved in the d e c i s i o n s . Several of these p o l i c i e s , implemented by d i r e c t o r s , contr ibuted to the success of the Cooperat ive . The d e c i s i o n in 1919 to enter the r e t a i l trade in Vancouver and the d e c i s i o n in 1924 to bu i ld manufacturing plants granted the A s s o c i a t i o n a measure of control which enabled the Cooperative to surv ive the depression years . Many cooperat ives which returned a l l p r o f i t s to the members f a i l e d in times of f i n a n c i a l c r i s i s because of lack of c a p i t a l . At the annual meeting in 1933 the Assoc ia t ion adopted a revolv ing c a p i t a l plan in order to prevent th is problem from a r i s i n g . The e n t i r e outstanding cap i ta l was c a l l e d in and each member was issued h is holding in ten c e r t i f i c a t e s to mature in from one to ten years . Funds with which to redeem the 10% block of c e r t i f i c a t e s were set up by making deductions from sh ippers ' milk accounts. At the end of the y e a r , , ten-year c e r t i f i c a t e s were issuedf for the deductions so made. iFhis plan,.whereby the e n t i r e cap i ta l revolved in a ten-year p e r i o d , 26 prevented rapid dep le t ion as r e t i r i n g members redeemed the i r s tock . This revolv ing plan ensured.the F . V . M . P . A . of working c a p i t a l during the long depression years when new members were prevented from enter ing the A s s o c i a t i o n . Gradually as the reserves b u i l t up during the per iod of war-time prosper i ty the Cooperative was able to expand and thus compete s u c c e s s f u l l y in the h e c t i c post-war p e r i o d . Another important resu l t of the plan was that each member, as he r e t i r e d , was paid of f wi th in a ten-year p e r i o d . Thus the largest part of the stock was held by those whom the F .V .M.P .A . was cur rent ly s e r v i n g . The d i r e c t o r s sought to fos te r the loya l ty of the members through the B u t t e r f a t , through the i r speeches, through the local a s s o c i a t i o n s and the annual p i c n i c . But the loyalty was not merely a resu l t of propaganda, though i t may have been kept warm by i t . Many farmers remembered the grievances of e a r l i e r days. Many who shipped enough milk to have had l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y in gaining contracts from independent dealers refused to break away because of a sense of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to o thers . "A man who has a l i k i n g f o r the Community, the d i s t r i c t he l i ves in has to put in i t something that is going to benef i t the indust ry . . . and he forgets l i t t l e f i n a n c i a l g a i n s , " sa id one farmer Who jo ined the F .V .M.P .A . ;m 1917 and remained a member u n t i l he re t i red more than f i f t y years l a t e r . The story of the F . V . M . P . A . is the story of ind iv idua ls l i k e t h i s , men who milked cows twice a day and formed the base from which the leadership emerged." The loya l ty of the Cooperative member was a very real t h i n g , but of ten i t became fana t ica l and the d i r e c t o r s must have, on o c c a s i o n , . had problems in attempting to contro l i t . C E . Nelson, at the Mi lk Inquiry hearing in Ch i l l iwack in 1928, declared that "the cooperat ive a s s o c i a t i o n had come to be a sort of r e l i g i o n among the farmers of 28 the Ch i l l iwack a r e a . " The re luctance of the F .V .M .P .A . members to accept Dr. K . C MacDonald's s i n g l e agency plan was an ind ica t ion that the A s s o c i a t i o n i t s e l f had become more>important than the aims for which i t 29 had been organized. Throughout the depression years members stayed in the Cooperat ive , locked in by the i r own r u l e s , made only a f te r urging by the d i r e c t o r s , and by the fact that there was nowhere e lse for them to send t h e i r mi lk . The sense of discouragement and defeat was overwhelming. At the annual p i c n i c in 1937 Macken warned them against a sense of i n f e r i o r i t y which 30 foes, of the A s s o c i a t i o n were attempting to" fos ter among thesmembers. The fact that Macken stayed with them, a man respected not only in the Ch i l l iwack V a l l e y , but a lso in the prov ince , was some c o n s o l a t i o n . Barrow, Macken, Mercer and Berry a l l played key roles in the f igh t for l e g i s l a t i o n , and i t was the d i r e c t o r s who worked hard to create a favorable image for the Cooperative before a pub l ic re la t ions department was e s t a b l i s h e d . There can be l i t t l e doubt that the leader-ship was able and many-faceted. There has been evidence of i n t e g r i t y , p o l i t i c a l s k i l l and shrewd business judgment. It is important to remember, however, that i t was the members themselves in the i r l o c a l s who e lected the i r d i r e c t o r s . No man ever became a d i r e c t o r u n t i l he had proved himself and gained exper ience . in h is l o c a l . The president and v i c e - p r e s i d e n t were chosen by the d i r e c t o r s . ' No man achieved th is p o s i t i o n un t i l he had served for several years as d i r e c t o r . Thus the men who headed the Cooperative were always se lected — f i r s t by the membership and then by the very small group of men with whom they had worked c l o s e l y . Though the management may have educated, guided and c o n t r o l l e d the membership and conducted i ts business e f f i c i e n t l y , the members showed shrewd judgment in s e l e c t i n g the i r leaders . The q u a l i t y of i t s leader-ship may expla in the surv iva l of the F . V . M . P . A . , but the grass roots control is an equal ly important reason for i t s success . i i The A s s o c i a t i o n f a i l e d in i t s attempt to gain complete contro l of the milk production in the V a l l e y . This apparent f a i l u r e may have been an important fac tor in ensuring the success of the Coopera t ive . . Though the independent producers gained a d ispropor t ionate share of the f l u i d market and ensured the surv iva l of the independent d e a l e r s , they presented a chal lenge to the F . V . M . P . A . ; they prevented the formation of a dangerous monopoly and they forced Cooperative leaders to c l a r i f y constant ly A s s o c i a t i o n aims. The c lear understanding which Cooperative members had of the i r goals was one of the h e a l t h i e s t aspects of the i r intense l o y a l t y . The independents provided a target for the resentment of Cooperative members during the i r long and f r u s t r a t i n g s t ruggle to achieve c o n t r o l l e d marketing. This had the e f f e c t of preventing Cooperative members from blaming the p o l i t i c a l system and was, in par t , the reason agrar ian th i rd party p o l i t i c a l movements f a i l e d in the V a l l e y . The i r inherent respect for B r i t i s h j u s t i c e , which F .V .M .R .A . members mistakenly assumed was basic to the shaping of the Canadian federal system, prevented them from d i r e c t i n g the i r resentment at the j u d i c i a l system, though the fact that f requent ly at least one of the judges dissented from the judgments must have created cons iderab le doubt about - the process. The i r resentment tended to focus , in par t , on the lawyers who benef i t ted most from the 1 i t igat ion , but mainly on the independents who i n i t i a t e d the act ion to contest the l e g i s l a t i o n . Bas i l Gardom, a vocal and f i e r c e opponent of l e g i s l a t i o n designed to equal ize r e t u r n s b e c a m e the ch ie f target of the F .V .M .P .A . members' pent-up f u r y . Macken's r inging denunciat ion of Gardom's "opposi t ion 32 to the w i l l of the major i ty" in an a r t i c l e he e n t i t l e d "Gardominat ion," may have sprung from his own intense f r u s t r a t i o n over the refusal of independents to share the burden of the s u r p l u s . But th is a r t i c l e was wr i t ten at a time when hope of re ta in ing marketing l e g i s l a t i o n was very dim and the Cooperative was c l o s i n g i ts membership. It would appear that Macken, who c o n s i s t e n t l y abjured personal v i t u p e r a t i o n , rea l i zed that his f i e r c e attack on Gardom's " v o c i f e r o u s , c l a m o u r , " " s c u r r i l o u s pen," and " jeer ing journa l ism" could d i r e c t the Cooperative members' anger and despair away from the A s s o c i a t i o n toward the target which Gardom so convenient ly prov ided. When the depression a f fec ted the V a l l e y , many, farmers f a i l e d to r e a l i z e the importance of the milk f lood of 1931, the c o l l a p s e of world markets, the increased competit ion from Alber ta farmers who turned from grain growing to butter making, the decreased consumption of milk because of high unemployment. They were slow to r e a l i z e the fau l ty s t ruc ture of the milk boards. They did know that the marketing l e g i s -l a t i o n worked to the i r advantage throughout 1930. Many remained convinced that the depression would not have af fected the Va l ley at a l l i f the marketing l e g i s l a t i o n had gone unchal lenged. It was no coincidence that the upsurge in . in terest in a mi 1itant farmers 1 union occurred between the defeat of p rov inc ia l l e g i s l a t i o n and the i n i t i a t i o n of e f f o r t s to implement federal laws. This period of s t a b i l i t y at the beginning of the depress ion was not the only case of timing which contr ibuted to the success of the A s s o c i a t i o n . The sharp r i s e in returns to the producer during the f i r s t year the F .V .M .P .A . was in business resul ted from the economies pract ised by the Cooperat ive , but these were eas ie r to e f f e c t because of the upward swing in the war-time economy. This i n i t i a l success created a core of loyal members who "never forgot that the i r returns had doubled wi th in the f i r s t year of the F . V . M . P . A . ' s o p e r a t i o n . -Geographic factors contr ibuted to the success of the F . V . M . P . A . The compact nature of the long narrow v a l l e y , where s o i l and c l i m a t i c condi t ions were so admirably sui ted to d a i r y i n g , made i n i t i a l o r g a n i -zat ion eas i e r , -part ic i i lar ly 'when the attempts of c i t y dealers to play one end of the Va l ley against the other a f t e r the completion of'?the ; B.C. E l e c t r i c Railway, drove farmers to united a c t i o n . The rapid growth of an in ternat ional sea-port at the mouth of the Va l ley provided a l u c r a t i v e market which had the enormous advantage of being l o c a l . Though i t created great controversy , the d e c i s i o n of the Cooperat ive members to enter the r e t a i l f i e l d in 1919 and to form the Associated Da i r ies in 1930 gave the A s s o c i a t i o n farmers the d i s t i n c t advantage of being able to control both the production and d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e i r product. Such control would have been d i f f i c u l t under d i f f e r e n t geographic c o n d i t i o n s . The success of the Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n resul ted from a unique combination of economic, geographic and human f a c t o r s , from a fortunate timing of events and from an oppos i t ion which, though i t created problems, prevented,, the formation of a dangerous monopoly and d i rec ted the farmer-Is d iscontent away from his own o r g a n i z a t i o n . An examination of the reasons for the.success of the F . V . M . P . A . reveals a good deal about the. Cooperat ive; a cons idera t ion of the e f f e c t of that success , however, reveals the s i g n i f i c a n t ro le played by the A s s o c i a t i o n in p o l i t i c s , in the economy of the Va l ley and in the milk industry of the prov ince . i i i L .A . Wood, .d iscussing in.1924 the farmers' movements in Canada, . stated tha t , with affewssminor except ions , B r i t i s h Columbia had "remained e n t i r e l y outs ide the sphere of inf luence of agrar ian movements 33 in Canada." Wood f a i l e d to r e a l i z e that in the Fraser V a l l e y , farm movements, adapted to local c o n d i t i o n s , had been the means through which farmers had made considerable ga ins . Wood maintained that a c l a s s -consciousness , hindered by "the physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of B r i t i s h Columbia and the d i v e r s i t y of i t s farm occupa t ions , " had not evolved 34 among the farmers of the province. The d i v e r s i t y cannot be denied, but in the Fraser V a l l e y , farmers had been c lass conscious enough•to engage in c o l l e c t i v e a c t i o n . Professor M.A. Ormsby, examining the United Farmers of B r i t i s h Columbia in much greater de ta i l than Wood had done, rea l i zed that the "movement sprang out of the Conservat ive Party rather than, as on the P r a i r i e s , out of the L ibera l P a r t y , " and a t t r i b u t e d , in p a r t , the lack of success of the movement to form a t h i r d party to the "conservat ive 35 outlook" of the farmers. It is true that there was very l i t t l e support:among the farmers fo r a rad ica l p o l i t i c a l philosophy in B r i t i s h Columbia, and there were obvious fac tors which expla in the more conservative. a t t i tude of the coast farmer. The preponderance of those with. Anglo-Saxon background engaged in da i ry ing meant that farming communities were c l o s e r kni t than those of A l b e r t a . The short f r o n t i e r per iod with i ts waves of Ontar io and B r i t i s h immigration had not allowed the laying of seed beds for agrar ian unrest as had occurred in the Clear G r i t areas of Ontar io . Never theless, an examination of p o l i t i c a1 -behavior in the Fraser Va l ley in comparison with the develop-ment of the United Farmers of A lber ta and the United Farmers of Ontar io w i l l reveal that the "conservat ive out look" was not only a cause for the weakness of the rad ica l movement, but was i t s e l f caused by. the success of the Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n . Farm movements on the Canadian P r a i r i e s and in Ontar io had t h e i r roots in the farmers' fear of los ing the i r place in soc ie ty as a resu l t of the increasing subordinat ion of a g r i c u l t u r e to other economic i n t e r e s t s . The rapid increase in i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n during the f i r s t two decades of the century was characterized by an increase not only in the number of manufacturing, business and financial concerns, but also in the size of each. The sense of disillusionment which spread with the economic recession of 1912-1914 was aggravated by the farmer's* belief that he had been duped by a distortion:of the "free trade" issue during the election of 1911. It has been generally assumed that because Brit ish Columbia farmers were not represented on the Canadian Council of Agriculture which had petitioned the Laurier government for free-trade in December, 1910, they were unaffected by the outcome of the 1911 election. In the Fraser Valley, however, John Oliver ran as Liberal candidate for the Fraser Valley in the dominion election, having been defeated as M.L.A. for Delta in 1909. His opponent was J.D. Taylor, owner of the Brit ish Columbian, a newspaper which published not only a- daily, but also a weekly with a wide circulation throughout the Valley. The news was geared to its large population of farm readers. Columbian editorials dealt at great length with the dangers of free trade and continental ism. The Chilliwack Progress also supported the. Conservative Party's protectionist stand and ridiculed John Oliver "whose pathetic and se l f - sacr i f ic ing mission it was to offer for the Conservative orators ready-made targets for their 36 most te l l ing shafts." Oliver was decisively defeated, polling only 37 1849 votes to Taylor's 3542. ' He was defeated again in the provincial election.of 1912. In 1916 when rising costs of production, labor shortages and poor returns were creating unrest among Valley farmers, John Oliver was returned as M.L.A. for Dewdney riding. The election of 1916 must be seen in terms of the collapse of the Conservative government, in off ice since 1903 and facing its f i r s t general election without the leadership of the dynamic and popular S i r Richard McBride. The predicament of the Conservatives tends to obscure the fact that in the Fraser Va l ley there was a farmers' v i c t o r y as dramatic as the e l e c t i o n of the farmer government in Ontar io three years l a t e r . John O l i v e r , so much the epitome of the r u s t i c , defeated W.J . Manson, M in is te r of A g r i c u l t u r e in the Bowser government. The resentment of p r a i r i e and Ontar io farmers was shared by the Fraser Va l ley farmers and the reason for O l i v e r ' s success against a strong Conservat ive .candidate can be seen, in p a r t , as a sign of farmer f r u s t r a t i o n and a repudiat ion of the 1911 e l e c t i o n r e s u l t s . Va l ley farmers had not only e lected a representa t ive ; they a lso made i t poss ib le for O l i v e r to become Farmer-Premier in 1918. E.D. Barrow, e lec ted in Ch i l l iwack in 1916, was nominated from the f l o o r of the ha l l at the L ibera l Party nominating convention in a manner s i m i l a r to the way in which U .F .O . candidates were se lected for the Ontar io p r o v i n c i a l e l e c t i o n three years l a t e r . He was opposed by W.L. Macken, a popular candidate who was supported by many in the 39 business community. But the farmers e lected Barrow who was to become Min is te r of A g r i c u l t u r e in the O l i v e r government. A . D . Paterson, farmer nominee running as a L i b e r a l , was opposed in Delta r i d i n g by Lieutenant F r a n k - J . Mackenzie, Conservat ive candidate , st i11 i n uni form. "Farmers who stay at home and engage in the production of food-s t u f f s are doing the i r share for Canada and the Empire, and nothing more should be required of them," Paterson d e c l a r e d . . He went even fur ther and pointed out that "he did not see his opponent, Lieutenant 41 F . J . MacKenzie, producing anything though he was i n . u n i f o r m . " As the returns came in from the rural p o l l s , Paterson was in the lead, a c e r t a i n i n d i c a t i o n that the farmers were indeed c lass consc ious . It was not un t i l the so ld ie r . vote-Swas counted that MacKenzie edged 42 ahead to gain a 58 vote major i ty . In another respect th is 1916 e l e c t i o n bore some resemblance to the U .F .O. surge to power in Ontario in, 19.19. . A number of labor candidates were in the f i e l d . Parker Wil l iams of Newcastle, gra te fu l to the L i b e r a l s because they ref ra ined from running against htm in his home r i d i n g , appeared on the platform with E.D. Barrow and helped him open . . . 2 , 3 his campaign. The dominion e l e c t i o n campaign of 1917 fol lowed a pattern of hyster i s i m i l a r to that in the major i ty of const i tuenc ies in Engl ish-speak ing Canada. The e l e c t o r a l d i s t r i c t was s p l i t into New Westminster, where W.G. McQuarrie, a Conservat ive , became the Government member, and the Fraser V a l l e y , where the Unionist candidate , F .B . Stacey, a L i b e r a l , received the nomination. Stacey was opposed by an independent Laur ier L i b e r a l , Major P . B . H . Ramsay, who agreed with everything in "the Laur ier manifesto except c o n s c r i p t i o n " and claimed to be represent ing the farming in te res ts 2(5 Of almost 5000 votes p o l l e d , Stacey won a majori ty of 2282, but over 1700 people.had voted for Ramsay, and Barrow had apparently thrown his support to the Major. When Barrow had to .s tand for r e - e l e c t i o n in his r id ing in order to accept the A g r i c u l t u r e p o r t f o l i o in the O l i v e r cab ine t , he was opposed by H . J . Barber, a nominee of the Unionist par ty . The issues at s take , according to the Barber supporters , were the p o s i t i o n taken by Barrow during the 1917 dominion e l e c t i o n and the p r o v i n c i a l government record . The p r o v i n c i a l Conservatives were s t i l l weak and undoubtedly there were many who f e l t that a b y - e l e c t i o n for the purpose of approving a representat ive who would as a resu l t become a member of the cabinet should go uncontested, but the timing of th is local e l e c t i o n is qui te s i g n i f i c a n t . On A p r i l 20, 1918 the Unionist government, which during the e l e c t i o n of 1917 had pledged that farmers' sons would be exempt from m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e s , passed an o rder - in -counc i1 empowering the government to abo l ish exemptions in the age group 19"22. Hundreds of Ontar io farmers marched to Ottawa to protest the move. They were jo ined by a group from Quebec and, though the execut ive of the U . F . A . had sent a telegram to Ottawa to a f f i r m the farmers' support of the government move, there was considerable admiration among p r a i r i e farmers f o r . t h e strong stand taken by eastern farmers and the breach th is act ion created was rap id ly repa i red . Membership in the U .F .O. Clubs rose from 12,000 48 at the end of 1917 to 25,000 in 1918 and 60,000 in 1919. The react ion to the c a n c e l l a t i o n of the exemption was an important fac tor in p r o p e l l i n g Ontar io farmers into p o l i t i c s in 1919 and A lber ta farmers in 1921. There appears to have been no protest from B r i t i s h Columbia farmers. Was th is an ind ica t ion that they were conservat ive and loya l? On May 2, 1918, two weeks before the Ontar io farmers marched to Ottawa, Ch i l l iwack farmers had an opportunity to r e - e l e c t E.D. Barrow who was being attacked for his support of a Laur ie r L i b e r a l . Barber gained 795 votes to Barrow' 1323. Of these 795 vo tes , ,302 were won in the c i t y of C h i l l i w a c k and 49 127 in S a r d i s , where.the conservat ive .pa t te rn l a i d on the community by A . C . Wells and the creamery disputes may have been fac tors in throwing support to the Conservat ive candidate. Barrow obviously had strong support from the farmers. The F . V . M . P . A . and the United Farmer movement were both organized as a response to rapid urbanizat ion and i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n . The sharp recession of 1912-1913 had brought the U .F .O. and the F .V .M .P .A . into being.and the war-time demands on the economy st imulated t h e i r growth. By 1917 the F . V . M . P . A . had gone in to .bus iness and the United Farmer movement had spread to B .C. The United Farmers of B r i t i s h Columbia o r ig ina ted .w i th the Cowichan Creamery A s s o c i a t i o n ^ a week or so a f t e r the Fraser Va l ley farmers won the i r f i r s t substant ia l v i c t o r y over Vancouver dea le rs . "^ The f i r s t convention was held in V i c t o r i a on February 16, 1917, j u s t one month a f te r the F .V .M .P .A . d i r e c t o r s at the fourth annual meeting of the A s s o c i a t i o n announced the i r in tent ion of going into bus iness . The main leadership and support for the U . F . B . C . came from Vancouver Island and the Okanagan.. J.W. Berry was e lected v i c e - p r e s i d e n t on 52 the f i r s t execut ive , and at a convention in Smithers in June, 1919 he was named one of a committee of f i v e to br ing about the amalgamation of the U . F . B . C . and the Farmers' I n s t i t u t e s . Berry took a neutral p o s i t i o n on th is i ssue , dec la r ing that he was named to the committee w i t h o u t h i s consent. He a lso denied any involvement in the formation of a plan to 53 form a p r o v i n c i a l counci l of a g r i c u l t u r e . Neither h is name nor that of any other representat ive from the Fraser Val ley"appeared on the U . F . B . C . 5k -execut ive in 1920. Though a number of United Farmers l o c a l s formed during th is p e r i o d , i t is obvious that farm leaders in the Va l ley saw no need for the movement. E.D. Barrow, who was at the time M.L.A. for C h i l l i w a c k , spoke at the f i r s t annual meeting of the United Farmers. His cont r ibu t ion was to t e l l "an engrossing story o f . t h e success of the F . V . M . P . A . , " a 55 monopoly which he said did not abuse i ts power. P .P. Woodbridge,. a member o f . t h e United Farmers of A l b e r t a , a r r i ved in B r i t i s h Columbia ear ly in 1919 to a s s i s t with the organiza t ion of the U . F . B . C . He s t ressed the necess i ty for education in cooperat ive e f f o r t , but must sure ly have found his work superf luous when he discovered cooperat ives already working s u c c e s s f u l l y . 5 ^ Later that year , H. Higgenbotham,. U .F .A . sec re ta ry , pronounced the F . V . M . P . A . to be "a per fect plan for c o o p e r a t i o n . " 5 ^ This "per fect p lan" was implemented to enable farmers to compete s u c c e s s f u l l y . It is hard to imagine Fraser Va l ley cooperat ive members taking Henry Wise Wood s e r i o u s l y when he sa id at the U . F . B . C . convention in 1920, "Competit ion is the f a l s e law." P r a i r i e farmers, resent fu l of eastern c o n t r o l , and Ontar io farmers resentful of b ig business and d i s i l l u s i o n e d with the way the "system" worked, were vulnerable to Henry Wise Wood's ideas of group government 59 and c i t i z e n s h i p o r g a n i z a t i o n . The Fraser Va l ley farmer had some control over his market, and his opposi t ion was v i s i b l e . He was not he lp less against the ra i l roads when,. through coopera t ion , he could pool f r e i g h t rates and put h is own trucks on the road and r igs on the c i t y s t r e e t s . The Fraser Val ley cooperat ive member-jwas able to p r a c t i c e a rather pure form of democracy within his coopera t ive , but even more important, he had no des i re to change the economic system, for through his cooperat ive he had some hope of c o n t r o l l i n g i t . Just as r i s i n g pr ices and the success of the Grain Growers' cooperat ives led to the dec l ine of the Progressive par ty , so . the success of the F .V .M .P .A . d iver ted the in te res t of Va l ley farmers from p o l i t i c a l movements. In s p i t e of the fac t that there was an increase in area of farms in Ontar io during the 1911-1921 p e r i o d ^ 0 and the rural populat ion continued to i n c r e a s e , ^ 1 Ontario farm.1 i terature constant ly re i te ra ted 62 the theme of rural depopulat ion. Census f i g u r e s , though s i g n i f i c a n t enough, ,d id not show \what the e d i t o r of the Farmers' Sun c a l l e d the " c i t y over f low." The fact that the area of farm land had a c t u a l l y I"; •.' " ' 64 increased was not nearly so apparent as the v i s i b l e spread of the c i t i e s . The small v i l l a g e s were wiped out by improved roadsj rural mail de l i ve ry and p r o h i b i t i o n , and with them went the focal point of the rural community. The farmer was forced into greater dependence on the c i t y where much of the farm work was now ca r r i ed on. S k i l l e d c i t y tradesmen produced and repaired a g r i c u l t u r a l implements, and garage mechanics gradual ly replaced the v i l l a g e blacksmiths.^"' There.was some c i t y - c o u n t r y c o n f l i c t in the F r a s e r , V a l l e y , but there was l i t t l e evidence of the frequent expressions of fear and hatred 66 of the c i t y to be found in Ontario farm 1 i tera ture . Vancouver's growth had been as rapid as T o r o n t o ' s , but Vancouver was planted in primeval fo res t and crushed no rural hamlets as i t spread. Its rapid growth st imulated the development of farming and t r iggered the growth of v a l l e y cen t res . Though the c i t y dealer was a threat to the farmer, and the Vancouver Ci ty Council fought the marketing l e g i s l a t i o n , the farmers' dependence on the fresh milk market in the c i t y muted the c i t y - c o u n t r y conf1 i c t . Apart from logging operat ions on the mountain slopes and sawmil l ing by the r i v e r , there was v i r t u a l l y no industry in the Va l ley to compete with a g r i c u l t u r e . Small towns developed as centres for the farming communities and newspapers centred in these towns gave strong support to a g r i c u l t u r a l i n t e r e s t s . . The st ruggle of the "Royal C i t y " to maintain i ts p o s i t i o n as ch ie f centre for the Fraser Va l ley a lso served to mute the c i t y - c o u n t r y c o n f l i c t . Though the s e l f - i n t e r e s t of New Westminster 67 merchants and c i t y fathers f requent ly showed through, they constant ly 68 courted Va l ley farmers. Members of the F .V .M .P .A . in turn played o f f one centre against another. The fac t that they could do so and the fac t that they could c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h between the c i t y people who were the i r customers and the in teres ts which opposed them prevented the development of the sense 'of f r u s t r a t i o n which drove farmers to p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n . In 1916 the Val ley farmers were d iv ided and powerless. They se lec ted as the i r representa t ive , John 01iver with h is tweeds, heavy boots and vulgar accent , the ma 1igned;farmer who had been r i d i c u l e d and defeated. O l i v e r was always suspic ious of the c i t y and f requent ly advocated a return to the land. His creat ion of the So ld ie r Settlement plan indicated his f a i t h in rural v i r t u e s . In 1919 he saw the labor unrest in Vancouver as "a subversive move towards anarchy" in the "crowded c i t i e s . " 7 0 By 1920 the Cooperative had not only taken over the creameries but had a lso es tab l ished i ts r e t a i l ou t l e t in Vancouver. The O l i v e r image was no longer to le rab le to some farmers who now saw themselves as shrewd businessmen. J.W. Berry , speaking to a Farmers' Convention in 1918, spoke of "the ear ly suspic ions of farmers towards the urban res idents" and contrasted th is with farmers who "now, however, r ea l i zed the i r true importance and g l o r i e d in the i r w o r k . " 7 1 But O l i v e r was a lso resented by farmers who were s u f f e r i n g as a resu l t of the co l l apse of the post-war boom. There was a great deal of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n over . the land sett lement scheme and a strong core of farmer discontent was to be found among veterans attempting to become es tab l ished on farms. Land taxes were high and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , l e f t to bear the costs of roads and s c h o o l s , had i n s u f f i c i e n t revenue to meet the heavy f i n a n c i a l burden. The farmers, disappointed in the i r Farmer-Premier, turned savagely against him.- There was so much bi t te rness among Dewdney farmers who:were demanding a north shore road that O l i ve r l e f t the r i d i n g . x H e ran in both V i c t o r i a and Delta where he was opposed, not only by Frank J . Mackenzie, Conservat ive M . L . A . , but a lso by R.A. Payne, who r a n a s an Independent-Soldier candidate . Payne, c le rk of Langley m u n i c i p a l i t y , was nominated by a meeting of seventy farmers who adopted the plat form of the United Farmers with the exception of the clause f a v o r i n g ' p r o h i b i t i o n . Several speakers made i t c l ea r that the farmers hoped to gain some benef i ts from the 72 enormous l iquor p r o f i t , which should r e l i e v e the tax burdens. Sam Shannon, president of the U . F . B . C . local which f i r s t met in Cloverdale 73 s i x months- before was the f i r s t choice of the meeting but dec l ined to become the candidate. L ike Berry , Shannon appears to have changed his mind about the usefulness of the. United Farmer movement. Both men a c t i v e l y supported F . J . Mackenzie; both were on the execut ive of the F .V .M .P .A . Payne gained almost as many votes as Mackenzie, and th is s p l i t t i n g of the vote allowed O l i v e r to win the e l e c t i o n by a small margin. When he res igned, choosing to represent h is V i c t o r i a seat as the sa fe r of the two, Payne threw his support to the L ibera l candidate , Paterson, who won.the b y - e l e c t i o n with a s ix hundred vote major i ty . This support was an ind ica t ion that Payne's whole purpose had been to defeat O l i v e r . W.J. Park, Reeve of P i t t Meadows, supported J.W. Catherwood, Conservative candidate in the Dewdney-Deroche r id ing which O l i v e r had f l e d . He was made member of a reso lu t ions committee by a meeting which deplored the "moss-backed and p r im i t i ve methods of Premier O l i v e r . 1 It was during th is p r e - e l e c t i o n period that Park, exp la in ing the success of the F .V .M .P .A . in an interview, referred to the fac t that at a meeting in November, 1913, John O l i v e r had to ld the other d i r e c t o r s that there was nothing but d e f e a t . i n s ight for the F . V . M . P . A . 7 ^ The Cooperative obviously provided an a l t e r n a t i v e to agrar ian p o l i t i c a l movements for those engaged in d a i r y i n g . The Va l ley men best f i t t e d to give leadership refused to support a farmers' p o l i t i c a l movement, d i r e c t i n g the i r energies instead towards e s t a b l i s h i n g farmer-control over production and marketing of mi lk . The case of the Shannon brothers may lend support to th is argument. Sam Shannon, prominent dairy farmer whohad helped form the Cloverdale U . F . B . C . l o c a l , , h a d deserted the movement. His brother , Tom, a w e l l -known l i ves tock farmer, became pub 1 i c i ty manager for P a y n e . 7 7 By 1921 farmers dominated p r o v i n c i a l governments in Ontar io and a l l the p r a i r i e prov inces , and the Progressive party was forming to contest the federal e l e c t i o n . It has been supposed that B r i t i s h Columbia farmers f a i l e d to j o i n the movement because of lack of agreement over t a r i f f p o l i c y . When T . A . Crerar , leader of the Progressive party c a l l e d for the removal of dut ies on f r u i t in the House of Commons,.Okanagan 78 farmers who looked to the p r a i r i e for markets were dismayed. Fraser Va l ley farmers were a lso in favor of continuance of t a r i f f d u t i e s . "Free m i l k , " said J.W. Berry , "would do a b ig in jury to producers 79 in the Fraser Va l ley and other d i s t r i c t s . " In the dominion e l e c t i o n of 1921,-however, the .Fraser Va l ley const i tuency returned a L ibera l member to Ottawa. E .A. Munro, who opposed Stacey, the Government candidate , had been the f i r s t choice of the Unionist party in 1917, but had refused the nomination because of family commitment. His personal p o p u l a r i t y , and react ion to c o n s c r i p t i o n (his majori ty in M a i l a i r d v i1 l e came c l o s e . t o equal 1ing h is o v e r a l l majori ty) have both to be taken into account as reasons for the narrow v i c t o r y . Nevertheless, Fraser Va l ley farmers must have been less f r ightened of " f ree trade" in 1921 than has been genera l ly supposed. Munro's speeches sounded, in many respects , l i k e those.of Progressive candidates. • "The real i s s u e , " he declared to a Ch i l l iwack audience, " i s that of 80 the big in terests aga ins t . the common people, that is you and I." He declared that the t a r i f f was not the i s s u e , but the Conservatives saw to i t that i t was discussed as such. H.H. Stevens spoke in the Val ley in support of Stacey and in an able and e f f e c t i v e presentat ion defended the p ro tec t ive t a r i f f as necessary, not only to the farmer, 81 but a lso to the country as a whole. Fraser Va l ley farmers, l i k e the p r a i r i e wheat growers who had demanded f ixed pr ices for the i r gra in through the retent ion of the Canadian Wheat Board, could support f ree trade in a l l areas but those which subjected them to sharp compet i t ion. In 1921, there was a sharp recession and the Cooperative ran into s t i f f oppos i t ion and began to lose members. During th is period the Fraser Va l ley farmers' response bore some resemblance to that of other farming during th is p e r i o d . If the United Farmers had been a m i l i t a n t and growing organiza t ion in B . C . , Crerar would have had to q u a l i f y his f ree trade program to gain t h e i r support , for he was,, a f te r a l l , l i k e E . C . Drury of Ontar io , committed to the party system, and to broadening put . But the condi t ions of 1921 were temporary." Pr ices improved, the Va l ley Cooperative re-organized and ins t i tu ted the development plan which gave i t power to control the milk s u r p l u s . The farmers were t ightening control on the i r membership and moving rap id ly towards the i r support for compulsive l e g i s l a t i o n . When American milk became a th rea t , brought in by independent dealers f i g h t i n g the Cooperat ive , E .A . Munro was defeated by H . J . Barber, Conservat ive candidate , in the dominion e l e c t i o n of 1925- The farmers' a b i l i t y to control his market shaped his "conservat ive out look" as much as h is "conservat ive out look" prevented the emergence of rad ica l p o l i t i c s . In the p r o v i n c i a l general e l e c t i o n of 1924 a t h i r d party movement emerged. The Prov inc ia l par ty , which won 2k.2% of popular vote , had i ts roots in both the U . F . B . C . and among a group of d i s s a t i s f i e d 82 Conservat ives . In both the Dewdney and Delta r id ings the P r o v i n c i a l party candidates won so few votes that the movement cannot be viewed as having any s i g n i f i c a n c e in the Fraser V a l l e y . In.Chi 11iwack, however, E.D. Barrow was opposed not only by a Conservat ive candidate , but a lso by John MacLeod, Reeve of the m u n i c i p a l i t y . The e l e c t i o n resu l ts were c l o s e , with Barrow.winning 1305 votes to MacLeod's (Prov inc ia l ) 1222 and PcPhee's (Conservative) 10367? It is impossible to see th is e l e c t i o n in terms of farmers support ing a candidate who would fur ther the i r i n t e r e s t s . The farmers had e lected the i r candidate in 1916 and now wished to repudiate him. The most important . issue was the heavy cost of the Sumas"Reclamation project and Barrow's determina-t ion to make the land bear the. c o s t . In 1928, with no t h i r d party to s p l i t the o p p o s i t i o n , he was f i n a l l y defeated. The Popul is t party in the United S ta tes , a th i rd party movement based large ly on agrar ian unrest , was defeated in the e l e c t i o n of 1896. The Patrons of Industry, which had won 17 seats in the Ontar io l e g i s -lature in 1894, f a i l e d to gain s i g n i f i c a n t representat ion in the dominion e l e c t i o n of 1896. Among farm leaders , the f a i l u r e of these movements l e f t a legacy of d i s t r u s t for p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n . Because the formation of a cooperat ive presented a f e a s i b l e so lu t ion to the economic pressures of the period for the majori ty of Fraser Va l ley farmers, they were able to r e s i s t the pressure to form a p o l i t i c a l par ty . This meant.no farmer was forced to choose between his a l l e g i a n c e to a t r a d i t i o n a l party and to his " i n t e r e s t group," and i t granted the Cooperative i t s maximum potent ia l as a p o l i t i c a l pressure group. -At the Fraser Va l ley annual p i c n i c in 1928, Barrow and Paterson, L ibera l candidates for two Val ley c o n s t i t u e n c i e s , moved among the cooperat ive members while Berry and Atk inson , Conservat ive candidates , . aided by the i r leader , Dr. Simon-Fraser Tol'mie, campaigned equal ly 84 v igorously in another area of the p i c n i c grounds. The farmer was in the happy pos i t ion of knowing that he could support e i ther p o l i t i c a l team and be assured of representat ion favorable to the in terests of the Cooperat ive. When Barrow was defeated, the Delta Conservat ive A s s o c i a t i o n demanded the appointment of Berry as Min is te r of A g r i c u l t u r e . Berry appears to have been too dominant a persona l i ty for Tolmie to to le ra te in h is cab ine t , but the Va l ley farmers retained the i r v i t a l pressure point when Atkinson received the appointment. When enormous 1 oppos i t ion against the Mi lk B i l l developed in Vancouver, the delegat ion of farmers which went to V i c t o r i a was led by Ly le Macken, a staunch Conservat ive , and Alex Mercer, a f i rm and loyal L i b e r a l . When the "Milk Twins," as they were dubbed, .ar r ived back in Ch i l l iwack with the i r d e l e g a t i o n , the i r mission completed success-f u l l y , they were met by hundreds of cheering farmers and townsmen, were paraded through the s t r e e t s . i n triumph and feted at a h a s t i l y 86 organized party that evening. Cooperative members rea l i zed that no p o l i t i c a l agrar ian movement could produce men as e f f e c t i v e as these community leaders whose a b i l i t i e s , . p e r s o n a l i t i e s , and p o l i t i c a l a f f i l i a t i o n s so.admirably complemented each other . When the Tolmie government f e l l in 1933 v i c t i m to the depress ion , and Ch i l l iwack farmers rejected A tk inson , Premier T .D . P a t t u l l o appointed Dr. K.C. Macdonald, an Okanagan representa t ive , as Min is te r of A g r i c u l t u r e . A roar of protest went up in the V a l l e y . H.W. German led a delegat ion of Conservative farmers to the L ibera l meeting to add the i r names to the p e t i t i o n to P a t t u l l o demanding the appointment 87 of Barrow. Macdonald, l i k e P a t t u l l o , was an advocate of. government c o n t r o l . His t i r e l e s s e f f o r t s to a t t a in marketing l e g i s l a t i o n won him the re luctant admiration of the F . V . M . P . A . members. Unt i l the per iod of p o l i t i c a l decay which set in a f te r the formation of the C o a l i t i o n government, the cooperat ive member had l i t t l e d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the p o l i t i c a l system. Throughout the depression years , the in terest in th i rd party p o l i t i c s occurred only when hope of marketing l e g i s l a t i o n appeared dim. A good deal of the farmers' f r u s t r a t i o n was d i rec ted at independents, and much was released wi th in the Cooperative i t s e l f . Mercer was defeated in the e l e c t i o n for d i r e c t o r s in 1934 and Park in 1937. To s a t i s f y c r i t i c i s m , the d i r e c t o r s appointed a committee, headed by Hugh Davidson, to invest igate the s t ruc ture and operat ion of the A s s o c i a t i o n . The recommendations of the Davidson report would have provided for a nine-man d i r e c t o r a t e with automatic retirement of one - th i rd of the board annua l ly , 88 i n e l i g i b l e for e l e c t i o n for .another three years . These suggestions were never implemented, but the inves t iga t ion served the purpose of siphoning o f f d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . During the period when the C . C . F . party was bu i ld ing support among Saskatchewan and Ontar io farmers, . Fraser Va l ley members f l a t l y rejected a proposal from one of the l o c a l s . t o .support ' the. C . C ; F . . p a r t y . The t r a d i t i o n of insu la t ing the Cooperative from a f f i l i a t i o n with any party in order to gain maximum advantage from the p o l i t i c a l system had become f i rmly e s t a b l i s h e d . The e f f e c t of war-time cont ro ls fur ther convinced F . V . M . P . A . members that they had not been mistaken in t h e i r goa ls . The period of chaos in the milk indust ry , which succeeded . the war, led Va l ley farmers, along with others in the province to bo l t ranks and support a Socia l Credi t candidate rather than a member of the weak C o a l i t i o n par ty . The C C F . party which a lso gained considerable strength in the e l e c t i o n of 1952 had 1 i . tt le support from Cooperative members who refused to commit themselves to a party which attacked the system. They had a conservat ive out look , which may e x p l a i n , in par t , the i r re jec t ion of rad ica l p o l i t i c s , but that conservatism was strengthened and reshaped by local c o n d i t i o n s . The s t a b i l i t y created by the Milk Industry Act convinced F . V . M . P . A . members that they had always been r ight and estab l ished one of the f i r s t f i rm strongholds in the province for the Socia l Cred i t par ty . Any person who has witnessed the messianic reception accorded the i r M in is te r of A g r i c u l t u r e and the into lerance for his opponents at a l l - c a n d i d a t e e l e c t i o n r a l l i e s , must have some ser ious reservat ions about the conser-va t ive outlook of the Va l ley farmer. Given d i f f e r e n t geographic condi t ions and a d i f f e r e n t type of market, he would sure ly have been as capable of rad ica l p o l i t i c s as the farmers who supported the U . F . A . , the U . F . O . , the Progressive party and the C C F . The success of the. F .V .M .P .A . was a key fac tor in delaying the emergence of rad ia l p o l i t i c s in the Fraser Val ley u n t i l the decade of the 1950 's. i v The success of the Fraser Va l ley Milk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n has been of enormous s i g n i f i c a n c e to the economy of the V a l l e y . By b u i l d i n g i ts own manufacturing p l a n t s , the F .V .M .P .A . not only provided a means of c o n t r o l l i n g the surplus which s t a b i l i z e d the f l u i d market, but a lso by p rov id ing .a secure market, . i t allowed farmers, attempting to become es tab l ished on a small s c a l e , to begin farming with a few cows and gradual ly increase and upgrade the i r herds. This funct ion of the Assoc ia t ion was important in an area where land values were high and where urban sprawl threatened, as i t continues to do, the preservat ion of a g r i c u l t u r a l land. In his report in 195^, J . V . Clyne predicted that the surplus milk product ion , which had been the ch ie f cause of the b i t t e r f r i c t i o n in the.Va11ey,. would disappear wi th in t h i r t y years . That such a surplus was a v a i l a b l e was a d i r e c t resu l t of the success of the F .V .M .P .A . Throughout the depression y e a r s , . t h e F .V .M .P .A . provided a s h e l t e r for many small sh ippers . Though many farmers who had large mortgages, lost or were in danger of los ing t h e i r ho ld ing , and though many had too l i t t l e money to buy feed for the i r c a t t l e , F . V . M . P . A . cheques were issued regular ly and the cash t r i c k l e d throughout the community. It is not d i f f i c u l t to understand why businessmen became involved in t ry ing to f ind some so lu t ion when the marketing l e g i s l a t i o n f a i l e d . The pro tec t ive ro le played by the Cooperat ive, however, was respons ib le , in par t , for the fac t that i n e f f i c i e n t shippers and farmers whose premises were un-sani tary were shipping to the f l u i d market, though the breakdown of the government barn inspect ion system was more d i r e c t l y respons ib le . The Mi lk Industry A c t , which granted equa l i za t ion of the f l u i d market, f reed the Cooperative from car ry ing the burden of the s u r p l u s . The implementation of government standards freed i t of shippers who were a burden, and the Cooperative members found i t much eas ie r to make the t r a n s i t i o n from da i ry ing to a g r o - i n d u s t r y . Membership dropped and 90 production soared. The tank truck completely replaced other forms of t ransport and the new Dairyland plant was bu:Mt in Burnaby. The surplus milk used in the manufacturing plants cont inues^to be an important fac tor in the milk indust ry . On several occasions the F .V .M .P .A . has been able to 'supply f resh milk when other d a i r i e s have had 91 shortages because of problems in production or because of s t r i k e s . The Cooperative which for years created a s tab le f l u i d market by absorbing the surplus mi lk , though th is meant engaging in less p r o f i t a b l e product ion , now performs the same funct ion in the province. The Bulkley Va l ley producers were brought into the F .V .M .P .A . as assoc ia te members 92 in January, 1968, the Comox Cooperative Creamery Assoc ia t ion merged 93 with the F .V .M .P .A . in January, 1969, and in January of the next year 94 the F . V . M . P . A . purchased the home de l i ve ry business of Jersey Farms. Again they were absorbing an important but less l u c r a t i v e branch of the milk business in contrast to d a i r i e s which concentrated on prov id ing carton milk and other products to the super markets. Large in ternat iona l milk businesses are gradual ly absorbing smal ler Canadian concerns. The F . V . M . P . A . marketing milk throughout B.C. and east to Thunder Bay is expanding, but i t is meeting s t i f f o p p o s i t i o n . Whether or not i t w i l l continue to succeed depends on many f a c t o r s , not the least of which is the loya l ty of the members and the i r under-standing of cooperat ive p r i n c i p l e s . A t r a d i t i o n . o f cooperat ion unique to . the Fraser Va l ley has developed among F .V .M.P .A . members. Many early, shippers, were undoubtedly f a m i l i a r with B r i t i s h t r a d i t i o n s of cooperat ion . .Park and Barrow among the d i r e c t o r s were representat ive of t h i s group. That th is in f luence continued is evident by the e l e c t i o n of T .M. Edwards as d i r e c t o r from 1932 u n t i l 1956 and of A . D . Rundle who succeeded him. Both were E n g l i s h -men f a m i l i a r with B r i t i s h coopera t ives . This t r a d i t i o n , combined with that of pioneers from Ontario who contr ibuted to the success of the creameries, l a i d the groundwork for the indigenous t r a d i t i o n which developed as the A s s o c i a t i o n , an.amalgamation of local cooperat ive groups, succeeded in becoming wel1 -estab1 ished in the 1920 's, in s u r v i v i n g during the 30 ' s , in expanding during the kO's and in persuading the Milk Inquiry Commission in 1954 that the Cooperative continued to have an important ro le to play in the milk industry of B r i t i s h Columbia. C E . Eckert was responsible for br ing ing Mennonite s e t t l e r s to -Yarrow. They a r r ived shor t l y before the depression which made i t . d i f f i c u l t for them to become es tab l ished in da i ry ing for some time. The e l e c t i o n of P . J . F r i e s e n , representat ive of th is group, as F . V . M . P . A . d i r e c t o r in 1964, was an ind ica t ion that the Mennonite da i ry farmers had become an important part of the Cooperative membership. The commitment of Mennonites to the i r own t r a d i t i o n s of cooperat ion and the success with which they have organized f r u i t and feed cooperat ives and a c r e d i t union means that the F .V .M .P .A . t r a d i t i o n has been re in forced and strengthened. J . Hoogendoorn, e l e c t e d . in 1967, represented the Dutch farmers who moved into the Cooperative in great numbers a f te r World War II. By 1965 approximately 85% of the Dutch farmers in the Va l ley belonged to the F . V . M . P . A . , and 21% of the Cooperative shippers were Dutch. The energy and resourcefulness of th is immigrant group has acted as a stimulus to the da i ry industry as a whole. The F . V . M . P . A . , by cont inuing i ts funct ion of provid ing an opportunity for newcomers to become more e a s i l y es tab l ished in d a i r y i n g , has not only benef i t ted the milk indust ry , but has a lso strengthened i ts own base. In a technological soc ie ty in which ind iv idua l i n i t i a t i v e is increas ing ly r e s t r i c t e d by the growth of government, business and commercial i n s t i t u t i o n s , the Fraser Val ley Milk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n provides a unique combination of farmer d i r e c t i o n and business management. As Canadians become increas ing ly aware that the i r economy has become dominated by mul t i -na t iona l corpora t ions , the F .V .M .P .A . provides an example of a company owned and c o n t r o l l e d by i ts members. The dec is ion of F .V .M.P .A . d i r e c t o r s and members to expand t h e i r membership throughout B.C. and the i r marketing throughout Western Canada, the i r dec is ion to provide se rv ice in as many areas of the milk industry as p o s s i b l e has precedents in the dec is ions made to go into business in 1917, to r e t a i l milk in 1919, to increase membership and farmer control in 1923, and to handle the surplus in the i r own plants in 1924. The c l e a r - s i g h t e d view of the Parks and the Barrows and those who caught the i r v i s i o n , that the farmer could best safeguard h is a b i l i t y to produce as an indiv idual i f he marketed c o o p e r a t i v e l y , made poss ib le the success and surv iva l of the Cooperat ive. This conv ic t ion that the i n d i v i d u a l i t y of the producer should be preserved underlay t h e i r b e l i e f that government control should ensure equa l i ty of access to the f l u i d market. Just as the soundness of these p r i n c i p l e s has been la rge ly responsible for the past success of the Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n , so they provide i ts best hope for the f u t u r e . NOTES INTRODUCTION Guide to the Provinee of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1877~78 ( V i c t o r i a : T . N . Hibben, 1877), 120. ^ Ib id. George R. Winter, " A g r i c u l t u r a l Development in the Lower Fraser V a l l e y , " Lower Fraser Val1ey: Evolut ion of a Cul tura l Landscape, B .C . Geo-graphical S e r i e s , No. 9, ed . A l f r e d H. Siemens (Vancouver: Tantalus Research, 1968), 105. In 1859 the Royal Engineers surveyed Douglas, Lulu and Sea Is lands, and open land north of the Fraser in the P i t t Meadows area and south of the r i v e r on H a l l ' s P r a i r i e and the area north of i t . These lands were of fered for sale at ten s h i l l i n g s per acre . A proclamation of i860 allowed pre-emptions of unsurveyed lands for which t i t l e could be secured upon payment of ten s h i l l i n g s per acre a f te r improvements had been made. In January of 1861 the pr ice was re-duced to four s h i l l i n g s tuppence. (F.W. La ing , " H i s t o r i c a l Ske tch , " Colon ia1 S e t t l e r s on the Ma i niand o f B r i t i s h C6lumb ? a , 1858-1871 ( V i c t o r i a : manuscript, 1939), 6) . O.M.I. Miss ions 1, 84, quoted in John Edgar Gibbard, "Ear ly History of the Fraser V a l l e y , 1808-1885," (unpublished master 's t h e s i s , The Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, .1937), 18. Canada, Census of '1901 , Vol • I, Table I, 2. The populat ion in 1869 was 1356. 177 CHAPTER ONE 1. Hugh McRoberts dyked and c u l t i v a t e d 1 and on Sea Island in 1861. His nephews, F i t zgera ld and Samuel McCleery, s e t t l e d on the north s ide of the r i v e r across from the is land in T862. (Thomas K idd , H istory of Lulu Is land, 1927, 22). In 1868 Wi l l iam and Thomas Ladner pre-empted property on the land now named af ter , them. By 1872 a l l land along the r i v e r and sloughs was claimed by the s e t t l e r s who fo l lowed. (Gordon de R. T a y l o r , De l ta 's Century of Progress (Delta Centennial Committee), 19). 2. Jonathon Reece was the f i r s t to pre-empt land in C h i l l i w a c k , f i l i n g h is claim in London in 1859- He ca r r i ed on an operat ion in Yale as a butcher and stock dealer un t i l 1870, using his Ch i l l iwack ranch to pasture and to ra ise feed for t h e , c a t t l e he brought in from Oregon. His cous ins , Isaac and James Ki-pp,. l e f t the gold f i e l d s in 1862 intending to return to Ontar io . Reece, whose c a t t l e were being s t o l e n , persuaded them to s e t t l e in the Va l ley where they pre-empted land and managed the combined ho ld ings . (Interview with Casey We l ls , grandson of Isaac Kipp, August 22, 1970. A lso Biographical Dict ionary  of Wei 1 Known B r i t i s h Columbians with an H i s t o r i c a l Sketch b y ' J . B . Kerr (Vancouver: Kerr S Begg, 1890), 274-275). 3. See Appendix A. 4. In 1866 i t was estimated that 3,000 animals were being used in the car ry ing t rade. (Br i t i sh Col Limb ian , Sept. 19, 1866, 3 ) . 5. Charles H. Evans, "Reminiscences of the Fraser River Indian,'.' Ch i l l iwack  Progress, Mar. 2, 1904, 8. 6. Ib id . 7- In 1870 the Kipp brothers , Nowel1 and Blanchard shared the $1,000 cost of the f i r s t threshing machine to be brought into the Ch i l l iwack V a l l e y . (Gibbard, 239). A p ic ture of the thresher and i ts proud owners is in the Barber c o l l e c t i o n in the Wells Memorial Museum,,Chi11iwack. The same men brought a separator in the next y e a r . , (Mainland Guardian, Oct . 4, 1871). 8. It was Isaac Kipp and George Chadsey who were ac t ive in attempting to s t a r t a cooperat ive cheese factory when milk production warranted i t . Henry Kipp of fered an acre of land a s - s i t e for the new f a c t o r y . , (Chi 11iwack Progress, A p r i l 14, 1892). 9. Dai ly Columbian, May 28, 189'4, 1. 10. I b i d . , May 22, 1894, 4. 11. O l i v e r Wel ls , Edenbank Farm, mimeographed pamphlet, 1. 12. G. de R. T a y l o r , 22. 178 13- A farmer twelve miles back from the r i v e r was charged one d o l l a r for each l e t t e r or newspaper sent over to him. (Mainland Guardian, June 24, 1871, 3). • 14. Alexander Dunn, Experiences in La rig ley arid Memoi rs of Promi tient Pioneers (New Westminster: Jackson P r i n t i n g C o . , 1913), 73. 15- C . C . Kel ley and R.H. Spi1sbury, Soi1 Survey of the Lower Fraser V a l l e y , Dominion of Canada, 'Department 'of. Agr}cu1;ture, ,' , -'Teehh;i :GaWBu iri.et*in 20, October, 1939- The s o i l survey reported in th is publ ica t ion was conducted by the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , V i c t o r i a , B .C . with the cooperation of the Experimental Farms S e r v i c e , Dominion Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , Ottawa. . , P.N. Sprout and C . C . Ke11ey, So i l Survey of Surrey Munic?pa 1 i ty , B . C . , Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , 1961. Informat ion from th i s"report 'was included in the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board pub l i ca t ion Land for Farming, 1962. The map and s o i l d e s c r i p t i o n are reproduced in Winter, 112-113. There are extensive areas of good s o i l s , considerable medium and some f a i r to poor s o i l , but no very good s o i l anywhere in the V a l l e y . 16. Some farmers were forced to borrow from Indians in order to s u r v i v e . O l i v e r Wel ls , Ear ly Days, in the Fraser Val ley (Chi l l iwack H i s t o r i c a l Society pamphlet), 5 - . -'• 17. In s p i t e of the rather rest ra ined accounts of the f lood damage publ ished by the Columbian, a l e t t e r from Westham Island protested that the report of the damage was exaggerated. (Dai ly Columbian, June 15, 1894, 1). 1 •: . . An e d i t o r i a l expressed dismay over, the " reck less character of the reports of' the f reshet" published in eastern papers. ( i b i d , June 22, 1894, 2). One suspects that every Val ley resident was concerned about real esta te va lues . One l e t t e r wr i t ten from Hope expressed concern for the C h i l l i -wack farmers who suf fered great l o s s , but in so doing managed to make the point that Hope was high and dry . ( i b i d . , June 15, 1894, 3). 18. Lack of money and res is tance on the part of Sardis residents to plans which proposed to d iver t the water of the Chi l l iwack River into the Luk-a-Kuk delayed the project un t i l 1920. Three years la te r i t was completed. 19- As la te as 1968, George R. Winter f e l t impelled to point out the "weaknesses, shortages and f a l s e s t a r t s " in s p i t e of the " d i v e r s i t y and richness", of Fraser Va l ley a g r i c u l t u r e . (Winter, 101). Surely th is is a c l e a r ind ica t ion that the myth p e r s i s t e d . 1 20. B r i t i s h Columbian, Dec. 11, 1867 21. We 11s, Edenbank Farm, 4. 22. Canada, Census o f1901 , Vol - I, Table I, 2. 23. A l l e n Casey Wel ls , born in Napanee, Ontar io , in. 1837 of United Empire L o y a l i s t parentage, could trace his ancestry to Governor Thomas Wells of Connect i c u t , a Pur i tan who a r r i ved . i n Amer i c a . i n 1636. .Wei 1s came to B r i t i s h Columbia fo r the Car iboo.gold rush and took up land west of the Ch i l l iwack River in T867. He was an advocate of progress ive farming methods. In 1885 he b u i l t the f i r s t creamery in the V a l l e y . This was incorporated as a company in.1896 and run as a coopera t ive . As an ear ly advocate of winter d a i r y i n g , h e b u i l t the f i r s t s i l o in B.C. in 1891 and grew corn to. f i l l i t . His dairy barn completed in 1895 s t i l l s tands, a magnif icent s t ruc ture of hand-hewn t imbers, wooden pinned with mortised b r a c e - j o i n t s , set on a stone and mortar foundat ion. From the time he began d a i r y i n g , Wells kept records , se lec ted his best milkers and. beefed poor ones. Gradual ly h is grade c a t t l e were replaced with purebred A y r s h i r e s . His herd was one of the f i r s t to give support to the R.O.P. system star ted in 1906. As one of the f i r s t d i r e c t o r s of the Ch i l l iwack A g r i c u l t u r a l Society and as president of the B r i t i s h Columbia Dairymen 1s Assoc ia t ion for many years , Wells contr ibuted a great deal to the progress of da i ry ing in B r i t i s h Columbia. (Information obtained through 'conversation with three of A . C . Wel ls ' grandsons, Ray, Casey and O l i v e r Wells and from O l ive r Wel ls ' biography of his grandfather ) . 24. Wi l l iam and Thomas Shannon, young Irishmen who had s e t t l e d in Ontario with the i r parents , reached the Cariboo in 1862. Tom worked a gold claim and Wi l l f re ighted by bu l l team. In 1865 they took up land in Ch i l l iwack where they were jo ined by a younger brother , Joseph, in 1872. Joe moved to Surrey in 1874 and Wi l l and Tom followed him to the area they named Clover V a l l e y . Tom Shannon, who remained in Clover Va l ley a l l h is l i f e , married Mary Robertson, nat ive born daughter of a Hudson's Bay Company o f f i c i a l and an Indian g i r l . Of the coup le 's f i v e c h i l d r e n , the o l d e s t , Samuel, became a prominent dairy farmer and one of the ear ly d i rec to rs of the F . V . M . P . A . Later he shipped milk as an independent. G. Fern Tre leaven, The  Surrey Story , V o l . I (Surrey Museum and H i s t o r i c a l S o c i e t y , 1969), 25, 26. 25. Dunn claimed people were discouraged and would have l e f t i f they could but there was l i t t l e market for the i r land during the years of s t a g -nation before the b u i l d i n g of the r a i l r o a d (69). 26. Chj l l iwack Progress, A p r i l 16, 1891 -27. I b i d . , Nov. 8, 1892. This ind ica t ion that the town had grown qu ick ly a f t e r the coming of the r a i l r o a d is somewhat modif ied by a b i t t e r complaint about nuisances - - l i t t e r and garbage on the s t r e e t s , dozens of mongrels, wandering c a t t l e and run-away horses. t 28. Tre leaven, 60. 29. Canada, Census of 1901, V o l . I, Table I, 2. 30. T .R . Pi r t l e , History of the Dai ry Industry . (Chicago: Mojonnier Brothers , 1926), 154. 180 31. H .E. Erdman, "The 'Associa ted D a i r i e s 1 of New York as Precursors of American A g r i c u l t u r a l C o - o p e r a t i v e s , " A g r i c u l t u r a l H i s t o r y , Vo l . .XXXVI , No. 2, A p r i l , 1962, 82. 32. Ib id . 82, 83. 33. Harold Innis (ed.) The Dai ry Industry iii Canada (Toronto: Ryerson , ( 1937), 46. 34. B. Perki ns, Co-operat i ves i ti Oh tar io (Guel ph, Ontar io : Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, Ontario A g r i c u l t u r a l Col lege , I960) , 2. Perkins drew up th is s i m p l i f i e d l i s t from various statements of the Rochdale p r i n c i p l e s . 35- C.R. Fay, Co-operat ion at Home and A b r o a d , . V o l . II (London: P .S . King s Son, 1939), 314. : : ~ 36. B r i t i s h Columbia, Eighth Report of. the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , 1913-1914, R. 4. 37- I b i d . , - F i f th -Report ; ' 1895-1896, .1150,. 38. B r i t i s h Columbia, Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1894, Chapter I. 39- Ib id . , 1895, Chapter 15-40. I b i d . , Chapter 36. 41. I b i d . , 1896, Chapter 17. The Dai ly Columbian, June 4, 1895. Chi11iwack Progress, June 12, 1895• G. Hadwen read a paper on cooperat ive creameries.at the f i r s t B .C . Dairymen's Convention in V i c t o r i a . (Chi11iwack Progress, Feb. 27, 1895). T . A . Sharp of the Dominion Experimental Farm, A g a s s i z , addressed a meeting of dairymen at Ladner 's Landing on the subject of cooperat ive creameries and before the meeting adjourned, ninety $10 shares were subscr ibed. . (Dai ly Col umb i an , Mar. 27, 1895), 4. 44. Dai ly Columbian, June 3, 1895, 4. 45. I b i d . , Ju ly 2, 1895, 3. 46. I b i d . , Ju ly 17, 1895-47. B r i t i s h Columbia, Report of the Department of Agri c u l t u r e , 19Q0, 64. 48. Chil1 iwack Progress, Feb. 12, 1896. 49. I b i d . , Feb. 26, 1896. 50. I b i d . , June 10, 1896. The damage done by the l8g4 f lood was probably a fac tor in delaying the incorporat ion of the creamery. 181 51. Chi 1 1 iwack Progress,, Feb. 9, 1898. 52. I b i d . , July 17, 1901. 53. The Ladner Opt imis t , Nov. 10, 1954, 11. 54. Output of butter in pounds Edenbank Delta New Westminster 1897 53,605- 10,867 1898 81,212 61,542 37,994 1899 96,943 70,138 50,800 1900 107,615 75,820 84,872 1901 130,181 84,127 74,673 1902 118,580 198,535 133,920 From R.E . Gosnel1 , Year Book of B r i t i s h Columbia ( V i c t o r i a , 1903), 104-106. 55. I b i d . , 1903, 105. 56. Chi 11iwack Progress , Ju ly 4, 1906, I. 57- I b i d . , Mar. 19, 1902, 5-58. I b i d . , Feb. 26, 1902, 4. 59- Edenbank had made a p rac t i ce of pub l ish ing monthly reports in the local p ress . Now f u l l y audited year ly statements were made by each concern. In December, 1903 and January, 1904 a se r ies of l e t t e rs to the e d i t o r appeared in which Wells and M.H. Nelems, secretary of the Ch i l l iwack Creamery, disputed the qua l i t y of se rv ice provided to the patrons of each-establ ishment . Let ters from patrons support ing the i r two spokesmen indicate not only that f i e r c e l o y a l t i e s had developed toward both Edenbank and the Ch i l l iwack Creamery, but a lso that among a l l dairymen there was considerable respect for Wells and a sense, almost of embarrassment, that the quarrel had become p u b l i c . 60. Harald S. Patton, Grain Growers' Cooperation in Western Canada (Cambridge: Harvard Un ivers i ty Press , 1928), 476. The types of organiza t ion are the p r o v i n c i a l farmers' a s s o c i a t i o n s , the farmers' grain and elevator:; companies, the p r o v i n c i a l pool organizat ions and coordinat ing i n s t i t u t i o n s such as the Canadian Council of A g r i c u l t u r e and the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers. 61. I b i d . , 375-62. Canada, Census of 1931, V o l . II, 9. 63. Chi 11iwack Progress , Aug. 14, 1907, I. 64. Frank H a r r i s , "The Story of the B r i t i s h Columbia E l e c t r i c Railway Company," Westward Ho, 19H» 633. 182 65. B r i t i s h Columbia Gazetteer and D i rec to ry , 1905, 1910, 1915. 66. See George McCle l land , Appendix C. 67. B r i t i s h Columbia, Proceedings of the Royal Commission on Mi lk , 1954 (micro f i lm) , F 1900. W. Wardrop t e s t i f i e d to th is e f f e c t . 68. W.M. Page, formerly of Matsqui , t e l l s the story of h is father los ing s i x weeks' returns in th is way. When H.F. Page went into Vancouver to d iscover why he had received no.returns for s i x weeks, he found the da i ry to which he shipped boarded up. His son claims that the milk dealer la ter prospered in the automobile bus iness . 69. Vancouver Prov ince , Sept. 25, 1909, I. 70. As a resu l t of act ion by the Health Department of Vancouver, several vendors were prosecuted and conv ic ted . . (Province, Mar. 17, 1906, l ) . There was a strong f e e l i n g in the c i t y , however, that the wrong people had s u f f e r e d . Samples of milk were taken on the C .P .R . and B . C . E . R . t ra ins into Vancouver, and as a r e s u l t , a number of farmers were prosecuted under prov inc ia 1.1 aw. (Province, Sept. 10, 1906, l ) . Among the names of those summoned were many prominent farmers, two of whom became charter members of the F .V .M .P .A . Most were charged with adding a drug to the milk to .preserve i t , .but three were accused of adding water. The farmers reacted in anger and threatened to cut o f f Vancouver's milk supply. W.E. Buckingham, president of the Richmond Dairymen's Assoc ia t ion was among a group of farmers who came into the c i t y to d iscuss the matter (Province, Sept. 22, 1906, 1), but the charges were dropped because i t was impossible to prove who put the adu l te ra t ion in the mi lk . (Province, Nov. 14, 1906, 1). 71. Prov ince , Mar. 28, 1908, 1. Mr. J u s t i c e Clement declared p r o v i n c i a l regulat ions nul l and void in the case of Rex vs . Garvin though the milk was declared adulterated by dominion a u t h o r i t i e s . 72. I b i d . , A p r i l 24, 1909, 18. 73. Ib id. , A p r i l 27, 1909, 1- B r i t i s h Columbia, Report of the Royal  Commission on Milk Supply in B r i t i s h Columbia ( V i c t o r i a : 1914), J 12. 74. B r i t i s h Columbia, S ta tu tes , 1913, Chapter 43. 75. The B r i t i s h Columbia Gazette, Nov. 10, 1904, 2218. 76. Prov ince , Sept. 25, 1909, 1. 77- Ch i l l iwack Progress, Ju ly 26, 1911, 1. 78. I b i d . , Sept. 1910, 4. 79. I b i d . , Oct . 5, 1910, 1. 80. Wel ls , Edenbank, 5, 6. 81. Chi 11iwack Progress , Mar. 30, 1910, 1. 183 82. B r i t i s h Columbia, Report of the B r i t i s h Columbia Royal Commission  on M i lk , 1954-1955 ( V i c t o r i a : Queen's P r i n t e r , 1955), 28. 83. Chi 11iwack Progress, Nov.. 30, 1910, 8. 84. I b i d . , Dec. 20, 1911, 6. 85. The Fraser Va l ley ( F . J . Hart £ C o . ) , 1908. In th is very informative real estate brochure, John Hepburn from Scotland to ld that he had taken up a farm of 31i acres in 1907 and with the combined e f f o r t s of his family had c leared $1,400 the f i r s t year - - a feat which would have been impossible in Scot land . W.J . Hawkshaw who came from Ontar io stated his cows averaged $60 per head p r o f i t in 1905 for cream a lone. He expected that h is farm would y i e l d a p r o f i t of 15% to 20% wi th in two more years . 86. Le t te r from Professor Robert Wal lace, Un ivers i ty of Edinburgh, to Hon. Maurice R. G i f f o r d . -87. Major E. Pot t inger , "The Farm Land Problem of B r i t i s h Columbiay" Bri t i s h Columbia Magazine, F e b . , 1913, 103-88. B r i t i s h Columbia, .Report of the Royal Commission on Taxat ion ( V i c t o r i a : K ing 's P r i n t e r , 1912), B 12. 89. Ib id. 90. B r i t i s h Columbia, Sessional Papers, V o l . I I , .Report of the Royal  Commission on A g r i c u l t u r e , 1914, S~. 91. Ib id . 92. I b i d . , 7, 8. 93. Ib id . ,33. 94. B r i t i s h Columbia, S ta tu tes , 1913, Chapter 2, 4. Sect ion 4 of th is act amended Sect ion 45 of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Assoc ia t ions A c t , 1911 by changing the amount of the loan from one-ha l f to eighty percent of the subscribed c a p i t a l . 184 CHAPTER TWO 1. Report on A g r i c u l t u r e , 1914. 32. 2. Fraser Va l ley Record, J a n . 22, 1958. 3. B r i t i s h Columbian, June 2, 1925, 39-4. John Pearson, Land of the Peace Arch , Surrey Centennial Committee, 1958, 132. 5. Chi 11iwack Progress, Dec. 11, 1895, 1. 6. Margaret Lang, Along the Way, 1967, 98. 7. B r i t i s h Columbia, S ta tu tes , 1897, Chapter 13, 161. 8. B r i t i s h Columbia, Report of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , 1902, A 10. 9. Chi 11iwack Progress , A p r i l 27, 1910, ,1. 10. See Charles Evans, Appendix C. 11. See Append ix D. 12. F . V . M . P . A . Minutes, A p r i l 27, 1918. 13. I b i d . , Mar. 29, 1919-14. I b i d . , Richmond L o c a l , Aug. 8, 1918. 15- Chi 11iwack Progress , June 29, 1922, 1. 16. See C E . Ecker t , Appendix C. 17. The changing focus of the Va l ley can be detected in the d ia r ies , of • Charles Evans. His frequent t r ips to Sumas became fewer and stopped completely with his use, f i r s t of the B . C . E . R . tramline to New Westminster, then of the road to Vancouver. 18. Farm and Home, Mar. 30, 1922, 5-19. None of the r e l a t i v e s of the B r i t i s h Charter members can reca l l hearing of the i r fathers or husbands having any assoc ia t ion with cooperat ives in B r i t a i n , but H.W. German of C h i l l i w a c k , a l i f e - l o n g F . V . M . P . A . member and former neighbor of Barrow, t e l l s of a feed supply co -operat ive and a f r u i t cooperat ive that his father belonged to in England. He fee ls qui te c e r t a i n that Barrow,,who came from a neighboring county would have had s i m i l a r exper iences. 185 20. It seems highly probable that McCle l land , from the heart of the t e x t i l e country, would have been f a m i l i a r with the work of c o -opera t i ves , and several passing references in newspapers suggest that Park brought with him from England a thorough understanding of co -operat ive p r i n c i p l e s . Cer ta in ly Fors te r , a c t i v e in the trade union movement, could not f a i l to have been f a m i l i a r with these same p r i n c i p l e s . 21. B r i t i s h Columbia, S ta tu tes , 1911, Chapter 2, "An Act Respecting A g r i -c u l t u r a l A s s o c i a t i o n s , " The prov is ions of the act required that the a s s o c i a t i o n forming have 25 or more members. See a lso Appendix B. 22. B r i t i s h Columbian, Jan. 4, 1913, 7. 23. I b i d . , May 8,.1913, 8. 24. Ibid. , Oct . 21, 1913, 1 • 25- Ch i l l iwack Progress, June 4, 1913, 1-26. I b i d . , Jan . 17, 1951,5-27. W.H. T a y l o r , " A g r i c u l t u r a l Co-operat ion in B r i t i s h Columbia," ;. (unpublished B.A. T h e s i s , The Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1928), Part One,.8. 28. Chi 11iwack Progress, Nov. 28, 1906, 4. 29. A . G . L y t l e , "Fraser Va l ley Dairymen Did It," Farmers' Magazine, Oct . 15, 1920, 9» L y t l e s ta ted , tha t the Shippers ' Union had organized ten years before but i ts a c t i v i t i e s were reported in the Prov ince , Sept. 25, 1909, 1. 30. " W . J . Park Recal ls the D i f f i c u l t Years , " B u t t e r f a t , A u g . - S e p t . , 1949. 31. Ch i l l iwack Progress, Mar. 30, 1910, 1. 32. I b i d . , Feb. 26, 1913, 1-33. Ibid.. , A p r i l 16, 1913, 1-34. Ib id . 35. The f ir.st. di rectors were: J o h n ' O l i v e r , C E . Ecker t , E.D. Barrow, John W. Berry and W.J. Park. 36. F .V .M .P .A . Minutes, Aug. 29, 1913-37. I b i d . , Annual Meeting, January, 1914. 38. Let ters from Edenbank Creamery Company, Vancouver to A . C Wells and Son dated Feb. 5, Mar. 23 and A p r i l 10, 1912. In possession of O l i v e r Wel ls . 186 39- Chi 11iwack Progress, Mar. 18, 1915, 1,3. 40. Ib id. , Mar. 11 , 1915, 1. 41. B r i t i s h Columbian, May 1, 1914, 5. 42. The B r i t i s h Columbian, report ing the New Westminster meeting, c a l l e d the sponsoring organizat ion the Mainland Milk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n , and the Progress l i s t e d as o f f i c e r s of the organizat ion the execut ive of the Lower Mainland Milk Shippers ' A s s o c i a t i o n and the execut ive of the Fraser Va l ley Milk Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n . Obviously the Shippers ' Union was merging into the larger cooperat ive and observers would not d i s t i n g u i s h between the two a s s o c i a t i o n s . 43. B r i t i s h Columbian, June 20, 1914, 1. 44. Chi 11iwack Progress, June 18, 1914, 1, 4. 45. There was a rapid increase in a g r i c u l t u r a l imports from 1912 to 1914. The Report of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , 1913~1914, R 1 showed values for each year . 1912 I.913 1914 $13,099,885 $20,070,757 $25,199,125 46. Ch i l l iwack Progress, Aug. 20, 1913. Eckert published a chart which showed milk handling c o s t s . He hoped to e l iminate wholesale costs and reduce the costs of r e t a i l i n g . Dairyman's share $ 1,88 Cost of r e t a i l i n g 1.25 Wholesaler .62 Freight .25 Total paid by consumer $ 4.00 47. F .V .M .P .A . Minutes, June 19, 1914. 48. Chi 11iwack Progress, Dec. 3, 1914, 1. 49. Ib id. , Sept. 10, 1914, 1. 50. B r i t i s h Columbia, S ta tu tes , 1911, Chapter 6, and 1913, Chapter 2. 51. Chi 11iwack Progress, Nov. 26, 1914, 1. 52. F .V .M.P .A . . Minutes, Aug. 24, 1915-53- I b i d . , Jan . 26, 1916. 54. B r i t i s h Columbian, Jan . 30, 1917, 14. 187 55. Ch!11iwack Progress, Nov. 2, 1916, 1. 56. In December, 1916, E.D. Barrow and W.J . Park attended the meeting of Agassiz farmers c a l l e d to organize;,: a creamery a s s o c i a t i o n . They asked for support for the F .V .M .P .A . H.W. German, president of the Agassiz Farmers' I n s t i t u t e , and chairman of that December meeting, r e c a l l s that the i r proposal appealed to Agassiz farmers and a l l but one jo ined the Cooperat ive. ( interview with H.W. German, July 20, 1970). 57. Ch i l l iwack Progress, J a n . 4, 1917,3-58. Ib id . 59. Hoard's Dairyman, J a n . , 1929, 793.:  B u t t e r f a t , . A u g . - S e p t . , 1964, 11. 60. It is never qui te c lear whether the d i r e c t o r s were aiming to sign up 80% of the producers or 80% of the mi 1k produced in the V a l l e y . Most large shippers were among the f i r s t members, but i t is probably t rue , as Park pointed ou t , that the d e a l e r s , i f they had p e r s i s t e d , could have found enough uncommitted milk to remain independent of the F .V .M .P .A . If i t had not a t ta ined th is strong p o s i t i o n in 1917, the Cooperative might not have succeeded. 61. H .E. Erdman, The Marketing of Whole Mi lk (New York: Macmil lan, 1921), 154, 155. 62. I b i d . , 180-181. 63. I b i d . , 183. 6 4 . Ib id. Erdman had knowledge of twenty-six farmers' d i s t r i b u t i n g companies operat ing in the. United States in May, 1920. 65. Ib id . 188 CHAPTER THREE 1. Chi 11 iwack Progress., Mar. 8, 1917, 1. 2. Pr ice of Mi lk May June Ju ly November Ch i11iwack Ci ty Ladner 48? 60c 5Qc 52c 62 c 54c 55C 65c 57c 65 c 75C 67C Compiled from F .V .M .P .A . Minutes.' 3. B r i t i s h Columbian, Ju ly 3, 1917, 32., 4. I b i d . , Ju ly 31,-1917, 3. 5. F .V .M .P .A . Minutes, Sept. 22, 1917. The motion was passed again at the meeting on Oct . 16, 1917. 6. B r i t i s h Columbian, Nov. 27, 1917, 24. 7. F . V . M . P . A - A n n u a l Report, Dec. 31, 1920, 9. 8. F .V .M .P .A . Minutes, Feb. 9, 1918. 9- B r i t i s h Columbian, Mar. 5, 1918, 24. 10. Chi 11 iwack" Progress, Mar. 22, 1917,, 1. 11. Ib id. 12. Perry Starr claims that th is sentiment was f requent ly voiced in the ear ly years of the A s s o c i a t i o n . 13. B r i t i s h Columbian, Mar. 5, 1918, 24. 14. See Charles Evans, Appendix C. Hoard's Dairyman, .Jan. 1, 1926, 793. The reporter who had interviewed W.J . Park s t a t e d , "The proponents of the d i r e c t to the consumer route were unable to win a majori ty of the board of d i r e c t o r s un t i l 1919.11 15- E l e c t i o n of 1919 W.J. Park 558 C. N. Bel l 383 Alex Davie 543 J . Erskine 380 S.W. Keith 513 H. F. Page . 359 J.W. Berry 503 M. McLean 270 H.W. Vanderhoof 437 • C. Evans 233 F .V .M .P .A . Minutes, Mar. 8, 1919- The f i r s t seven men were e l e c t e d . 189 16. Hoard's Dairyman, Jan. 1, 1926, 793-17. L y t l e , 9. 18. B r i t i s h Columbia Gazette, May 22, 1919, 1640. 19- L y t l e , 9-20. F .V .M .P .A . Annual Report, Dec. 31, 1920, 9-21. L y t l e , 9. 22- B r i t i s h Columbian, Jan. 27, 1920, 2. S t a t i s t i c s submitted by M.B. Coatsworth to the B.C. Dairymen's A s s o c i a t i o n . 23. Ear ly minutes of the Mount Lehman and Eburne loca ls ind icate that the main purpose of the meetings was to deal with the feed bus iness . 24. L y t l e , 45-25. F .V .M .P .A . Annual Report, Dec. .30, 1920, 10. 26. Gordon de R. T a y l o r , 56. 27. F .V .M .P .A . Annual Report, Dec. .31 , 1920, 9-28. Ib id. 29. B u t t e r f a t , A u g . - S e p t . , 1964,,15-30. I b i d . , Nov. , 1924, 2,5-31. I b i d . , A u g . - S e p t . , 1964, 11, 12. 32. F .V .M .P .A . Annual Report, 1923, 9-33. Harry S. Berry , son of J.W. Berry r e c a l l s th is as being h is f a t h e r ' s pos i t ion. -34. F . V . M . P . A . Annual Report, 1923, -9-35- Ib id. , ,1924, 10. 36. I b i d . , 1926, 13. 190 CHAPTER FOUR-1. A . L . Morton, The L i f e and Ideas of Robert Owen (London: Lawrence and Wishart , 1952), 54. 2. G.D.H. Cole , The L i f e of Robert Owen (Frank Cass and Company, f i r s t publ ished in 1925) , 179. " 3. J . P . Warbasse, Co-operat ive Democracy (New York: Macmil lan, 1923), 317. 4. H. M i c h e l l , "The Future of Co-operat ion in Canada," Canad ian Journal  of Economic and P o l i t i c a l Sc ience , V o l . I l l , No. 3, August, 1937, 307-5. James E. Boyle , "Co-operat ives and Common Sense," The Nat ion 's Bus i ness , January , . 1929 , Washington, D.C. Reprinted in the Br i t i sh  Columbian, February 13, 1929, 10. 6. This term was used in a statement made by.Henry Wise Wood, quoted in Paul F. Sharp, The Agrar ian Revolt in Western Canada . (Minneapolis: Un ivers i ty of Minnesota Press , 1948)', Th~7~. "The Triumphant Democracy cannot f a i l because the Supreme. . . Power has th is work in hand and wi11 not let i t f a i1." 7. W.C. Good,-Farmer C i t i z e n (Toronto:. Ryerson, 1958), 147. 8. "Fraser Va l ley Mi lk Producers ," A g r i c u l t u r a l J o u r n a l , V o l . 8, No. 2, A p r i l , 1923, 41 . This was a synopsis of an address de l i ve red .by the Hon. E. Dodsley Barrow, M in is te r of A g r i c u l t u r e , at the F .V .M .P .A . annual general meeting, March 9, 1923. 9. The ed i tor of the Progress, descr ib ing the meeting at which the development plan was f i n a l l y approved in 1924, throws l igh t on the manner in which the decision-making process worked wi th in the Co-opera t i ve . . It is p l a i n l y evident that the d i r e c t o r s have a very c lea r conception of the s i t u a t i o n with which the a s s o c i a t i o n is faced , and having such, have made a most care fu l and minute study of the plan o f fe red as a s o l u t i o n . There is nothing of a blanket or take, i t for granted a t t i t u d e . Everything is explained in d e t a i l and questions and c r i t i c i s m s earnest ly inv i ted and courteously answered, the members being placed in the p o s i t i o n of a jury in the case a f te r the evidence is pre-sented . Ch i l l iwack Progress, September 24, 1924, 4. 191 10. Members of the Keith family r e c a l l the tremendous demands made on the i r f a t h e r , S.W. K e i t h , who was a d i r e c t o r in 1919. They a t t r i b u t e his i n a b i l i t y to r e s i s t the s leeping s ickness disease which a f f l i c t e d him in 1920 to h is s ta te of exhaust ion. 11. Pooled t ranspor ta t ion lev ies to A s s o c i a t i o n members were based on the d is tance from the shipping point to the Vancouver market. Ch i l l iwack farmers whose milk went to the local plant resented the i r heavy levy , 32c; per 100 l b s . Lang ley farmers considered i t a f a i r p r i c e for them to pay in order to share f l u i d market p r i c e s . 12. Ho ls te in breeders f e l t that payment for milk on a bu t te r fa t basis d iscr iminated against them and favored the Jersey Breeder. The i r volume of mi lk , usua l ly twice that of the Jersey s h i p p e r , cost them more in t ranspor ta t ion costs and they received no compensation for the i r skim mi lk . Ho ls te in milk was very much in demand on the f l u i d market as i t usual ly tested c lose to c i t y requirement (3.25% b . f . ) . 13. C h i l l i w a c k Progress, as quoted in B u t t e r f a t , March, 1948, 4. 14. F . V . M . P . A . Annual Report, 1924, 10. 15. I b i d . , 1923, 12. 16. B u t t e r f a t , Ju ly 1924, 12. 17- I b i d . , . M a r c h , 1925, 7, 8. 18. It should be noted that there is l i t t l e evidence that the q u a l i t y of independent sh ippers ' mi lk -was 'super ior 'to that of the F . V . M . P . A . Some farmers t e s t i f i e d at the 1928 Mi lk Inquiry .hearings that they had l e f t the A s s o c i a t i o n because they bel ieved the resu l ts of milk tests inaugurated by the F . V . M . P . A . were inaccurate . (Chi11iwack  Progress, September 13, 1928, 1). Evidence given at the Milk Inquiry hearings indicated that most of the one percent loss of members the F . V . M . P . A . suf fered was because of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with t e s t s . The Mi1k Commissioner found i t d i f f i c u l t to avoid the conclus ion that i f farmers l e f t the Assoc ia t ion because of. poor t e s t s , b u t continued to s h i p m i l k , they were s e l l i n g . t o an independent d e a l e r . ( B r i t i s h Columbia, Report .of the Mi lk Inquiry  Commission, 1928 ( V i c t o r i a : King 1 s P r i n t e r , 1929), 24. 19. W.L. Macken t e s t i f i e d to th is e f f e c t before the L e g i s l a t i v e A g r i c u l t u r a l Committee in 1931. Vancouver Sun, March 24, 1931,-14. 20. Columbian, December 21, 1920, 30. 21. Evening Sun, May 7, 1927, 1^  22. Ch i l l iwack Progress, May 12, 1927, 1. 192 23. Ib id . 2k. This group was made exempt from equa l i za t ion lev ies under the prov is ions of the Dairy Products Sales Adjustment A c t . As a resu l t the number increased enormously a f te r the passage of that a c t . They became a powerful force in delaying regulat ions requir ing pas teur i za t ion of milk in B r i t i s h Columbia. Their contention that raw milk was super ior to pasteur ized and that only impure milk required pas teur i za t ion d id considerable harm to the r e t a i l sales of the F . V . M . P . A . 25- At the Milk Inquiry hearing in Ch i l l iwack in September, 1928, Harry Fulton sa id that F . V . M . P . A . members did not have much to do with independents e i ther s o c i a l l y or in business and looked on them as " s c a b s . " He def ined a "scab" as "a man who in order to better himself would not co-operate w i t h . h i s ne ighbor ." Ch i l l iwack Progress , September 13, 1928, k. 26. F.M. Clement, ,"Market ing Farm Produce," S c i e n t i f i c A g r i c u l t u r e , A p r i l , 1921, 174. 27. Ib id. 28. Vancouver Dai ly Provinee, January 19f .1929, 1. 29. F .V .M .P .A . Annual Report, 1929, 15. 30. Vancouver Sun, March 3, 1931, 1. • • 31. J .W. Winson, "Co-operat ion by L e g i s l a t i o n , " Vancouver Dai ly Prov ince , as quoted in B u t t e r f a t , January, 1925, 13. 32. George Keen, "A Reply to Co-operat ion by L e g i s l a t i o n , " B u t t e r f a t , February, 1925, 2. 33. Ib id. 34. Numerous a r t i c l e s and l e t t e r s in the newspapers throughout th is per iod indicate that there was considerable in terest in the ques t ion . 35- W.A. Mackintosh, "The Canadian Wheat Pools , " Queen's Quar te r ly , V o l . XXXIII, No. 2, October-December, 1925, 119, 120. 36. The choice of name for the i r a s s o c i a t i o n indicates that the independents intended to fo l low the pattern of the American marketing cooperat ive of the same name which was organized to supply the f l u i d market. It is in te res t ing to note the re fo re , that the American organizat ion which was es tab l ished almost out r ight in 1916 as a bargaining and.marketing a s s o c i a t i o n , found i t necessary to, acqu?re l o c a l . f a c i 1 i t i e s to process milk at country points so that i t would not converge on the centra l markets and upset p r i c e s . A pool ing method ;of:payment was i n s t i t u t e d . Joseph G. Knapp, The Rise of American-Co-operat ive  E n t e r p r i s e : 1620-1920 (Danv i l l e , I l l i n o i s : Interstate Pr in te rs 193 and Pub l isher , .1969), 2.22, 223f. 37. Columbian, August 18, 1925, 45. 38. Ibid. , .December 22, 1925, 18. 39. - I b i d . 40. I b i d . , October 12, 1926, 35. 41. Farm and Home, December 9, 1926, 17. 42. P rov ince , September 8, 1928, 20. 43. B u t t e r f a t , December, 1927, 4-6. According to th is account of the meeting, independents claimed that the F . V . M . P . A . had contr ibuted to the i r t roubles by supplying the Vancouver Hospital with milk when the i r customer, Sherwood D a i r i e s , had been unable to f u l f i l the requirements. Th is was denied. The F . V . M . P . A . had de l ivered a spec ia l order of a quart d a i l y to a doctor during the time he was a p a t i e n t . i n the i n s t i t u t i o n . The complaint ind icates the lack of t rust the independents must have f e l t for the i r dea le r . Independents claimed the F .V .M .P .A . had used p r i c e - c u t t i n g t a c t i c s to secure a contract they he ld . Park explained that the contract had been secured on a leg i t imate tender and part of i t had la ter been lost to another supp l ie r who of fered lower p r i c e s . Independents declared the F . V . M . P . A . had refused the opportuni ty of a merger or a l l i a n c e with independents. Park pointed out that the independents had asked.$30,000 for t h e i r business and $45,000 to go into a merger of a l l d a i r i e s . They had given to statement; of assets and had set a ten-day l i m i t on the o f f e r . This account of a meeting, cal1ed.because of accusat ions made on a s ta t ion platform as producers loaded the i r mi lk , gives a n . in te res t ing ins ight into the f r i c t i o n between independents and cooperat ive members during the 1920's. 44; Vancouver Sun,.November 23, 1926, 16. 45- Farm and Home, December 9, 1926, 17. Accord ing . to th is account of the meeting, the farmers were not appeased and said they wanted to see the " c o l o r . o f the money." 46. Vancouver Sun, November 23, 1926, 16. 47. Vancouver .Province, November 23, 1926, 7. .194 CHAPTER FIVE 1. See Appendix C, E.D. Barrow and John O l i v e r . 2. P rov ince , February 13, 1928, 1. 3. Ib id. , March 27, 1928, 2. 4. I b i d . , Apri1 21 , 1925, 6. 5. Sur^, March 27, 1928, 3-6. Ib id . 7. Ib id . , January 26, 1928, 1. 8. Prov ince , February 22, 1928, 8. 9- I b i d . , March 18, 1928. President McKee's statement was commented on in a l e t t e r to the ed i to r from Chas. E. Hope, Langley. 10. Sun, February 16, 1928, 14. 11. B r i t i s h Columbia, Report of the Mi lk Inquiry Commission, 1928, 109. 12. I b i d . , K111. 13. B r i t i s h Columbia Reports, V o l . XL, 512. 14. Ibid. , 513. 15- Columbian,.March 12, 1929, 3. 16. B r i t i s h Columbia, S ta tu tes , .Chapter 20, 1929, 189. 17. Columbian, October 29, 1929, 44. 18. Sun, January 6, 1930, 1. 19. Prov ince , January 3, 1930, 1.3. 20. Columbian, May 20, 1930, 4. 21. Province, . December 27, 1930, 9. The F .V .M.P .A . was able to supply, f igures for 1929. The 85% of the da i ry farmers must therefore represent Cooperative members. It seems obvious that 15% of the farmers (independents) must have suf fered a decrease in returns s ince pr ices did not r i s e . 22. Ib id . 195 23.. Ib id , 24. I b i d . , March 1 1 , 1930, 22. 25. Columbian, March 18., 1930,45. 26. Sun, March 18, 1930, 4. . 27. Ib id . 28. Ib id . 29. Prov ince , March 11, 1930, 22. 30. B r i t i s h Columbia Reports, XLI I , 493-495. Murphy pointed out in the judgment that ind i rec t taxat ion imposed by a p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e is u l t r a v i res not because the B.N.A. Act p roh ib i t s but because i t does not author ize such t a x a t i o n . 1 31. Columbian, June 10, 1930, 38. 32. B . C . R . , XLII I, 129-133. 33. Ib id. .34. P rov ince , November 30, 1930, 1 .• According to the newspaper report of the meeting, the Abbotsford Masonic Hall could not accommodate a l l the farmers who sought admission. Of the 359 independents in the V a l l e y , .250 were in attendance at the meeting when vot ing took place on the reso lu t ion that no milk board member be appointed. The p e t i t i o n to repeal the D .P .S .A . Act was signed by 137 farmers. Welsh, chai man of the Mi lk Board, stated in an o f f i c i a l report at the end of the year that th is protest re f l ec ted the opinion of only 200 out of a . t o t a l of 600 at the meeting. He sa id that groups of independents had c a l l e d on the Mi 1k Committee and "asserted they were not in agreement with the d e c i s i o n of th is meet ing." Provinee, December 27, 1930, 9. 35- P rov ince , December 16, 1930 ,12 . 36. Ib id . , August 6, 1930,.1. Columbjan, August 12, 1930, 38. 37- Ib id . 38. B u t t e r f a t , May, 1947, 2. 39- Columbian, August 12, 1930, 38. 40. Prov ince , January 30, 1931, 10. 41. Columbian, August 26, 1930, 1. 196 42.. Henry Armstrong maintained that he had been offered.44c per pound but te r fa t by the Associated D a i r i e s , though the F;V;M;P;A. received 73c for a l l milk they sent i n . Sun, March 31, 1931,24. 43. P rov ince , November 30, 1930, 1. 44. B r i t i s h Columbia, Report of the Rbya 1 Commi ss ion. I hvest igat Trig the  F ru i t Industry, 1931 ( V i c t o r i a : K ing 's P r i n t e r , 1931), 25-45- W. Stewart Wallace (ed . ) , Macrh? 11 an D i ct i onary of Canad i an B i Ography, 3rd e d i t i o n (Toronto: Macmil lan, 1963) , 220. " 46. Alan C. Cairns surveyed the controversy over the ro le of the J u d i c i a l Committee of the Pr ivy Council in an a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d "The J u d i c i a l Committee and Its ?Cr i t i c s , " Canad i an Journal of Pol i t ica l Sc ience, V o l . IV, No. 3 (September, 197U, 301-345- ~ ~ ~~ 47. J . R . Mai l o r y , "The Courts and the Sovereignty of the Canadian Par l iament ," C . J . E . P . S . , V o l . X (February-November, 1944), 165-48. Hodge v . the Queen, 9 A . C . 117, quoted in Mai l o r y , 165. 49- P-B. Waite (ed . ) , The Confederation-Debates in the:Province of Canada, 1865, Car leton : L i b r a r y (Toronto: McClel land and Stewart, 1963), 44. 50. Dominion Law Reports, 1931, V o l . 2, 193. 51- Ib id . 52. This is the opinion of Hon. T . G . N o r r i s . 53- Columbian, March 4, 1930, 33. 54- I b i d . , March 30, 1931 , 1-55- Professor Harold Innis saw in the f i e r c e competit ion for the f l u i d market in the h ighly s p e c i a l i z e d Fraser Va l ley region a pattern which r e f l e c t e d the problems of a g r i c u l t u r e in the whole country . H.A. Innis (ed.) The Dairy Industry in Canada (Toronto: Ryerson, , 1937), 267-56. Crysta l Dairy was the r e t a i l ou t l e t for a number of . independent producers. It had entered the Associated Da i r ies merger, but had l a te r broken away. The fact that the Milk Board chose to prosecute Crysta l Dairy rather than Hayward in an ind ica t ion that the Mi lk Board was attempting to impose'the levy on s e l l i n g agencies rather than on producers. Although i t was not given as a.reason, for the formation of the merger, i t may be that F .V .M.P .A . d i r e c t o r s were hopeful that equa l i za t ion lev ies which independent producers res is ted so v igorous ly would be eas ie r to c o l l e c t from the i r dea le rs , p a r t i c u l a r l y i f these r e t a i l • ou t l e ts were compensated for enter ing the merger by generous purchase p r i c e s . . 197 57- Columbian, September 4, 1931, 1. 58. B . C . R . , V o l . XLIV, 509. 59. Ib id. , 512. 60. I b i d . , Vol . XLV, 191. 61. Prov ince , November 18, 1931, 10. 62. I b i d . , February 16, 1932, 18. 63- R.A. Olmstead (ed . ) , Canadian Const i tu t iona l Decisions of the Pr ivy  Counci1 , V o l . I I I, 63. 64. Columbian, May 20, 1931, 1. 65i B r i t i s h Columbia Gazette , January 22, 1931, V o l . LXXI, No. 4, 246, 247. 66. I b i d . , January 24, 1935, V o l . LXXV, No. 4, 123. 67. Proceedings of the Royal Commission, 1954-1955, 1229. 68. B .C. Gazette, February 28, 1935, V o l . LXXV, No. 9, 273. 69. Chi 11iwack Progress, May 12, 1932, 1. 70. Evans' Diary , May 28, 1932. 71. Columbian, March 25, 1933, 1. 72. Proceedings of the Royal Commission, 1954-1955, 4655. 73. Ib id . 74. I b i d . , May 1 , 1933, 1• 75- Sun_, May 3, 1933, 1 and May 13, 1933, 6. Prov ince , May 12, 1933, 7. 76'. Columbian, May 16, 1933, 8.. 77. B . C . R . , XLVII I, 493. 78. ..Columbian, December 6, 1934, 11. 79- Interview with Howard R o t t l u f f . 80. Proceedings of the Royal Commission,.1954, 5291. B u t t e r f a t , February, 1955, 8. 81. Sun, October r2, 1933, 1. 198 82. I b i d . , October 6, 1933, 1. 83-' I b i d . , October 1 1 , 1933, 1 • 84. Col uinbian,. September 29, 1933, 1. 85. Sun, October 7, 1933, 1 . 86. I b i d . , October 6, 1933, 11. 87. W.F. Jones was president of the Farmers' Cooperative Un ion . ' 88; Sun, January 20, 1934, 1. 89. Prov ince , February 10, 1933, 25. 90. B r i t i s h Columbia, S ta tu tes , .1934, Chapter 38, 121-123-91- Canada, S ta tu tes , 1934, Chapter 57, 1337-92. I b i d . , 1338. 93- I b i d . , 1339-3k. Sun, January 9,1935, 7-95. B . C . R . , L I , 423-96. Columbian, Ju ly 3, 1935, 4. 97- W.J . Park was the choice of the F .V .M .P .A . W.T. McArthur, agreeable to independents and Hugh Davidson, chairman, were appointed by the government. 98. Columbian, September 28, 1935, 3, 'and October 10, .1935,'14. 99- Province, October 21 , 1.935, 2. 100. I b i d . , October 22, 1935, 1-101. Telegram to Hon. T .D . P a t t u l l o from Prime Min is te r Mackenzie King, Ju ly 7, 1936, P a t t u l l o Papers, B.C. A r c h i v e s . King quoted from a radio broadcast he made August 2, 1935-102. Western Weekly Reports, 1935, V o l . I.I, 34-35 and V o l . I I I , 475-476. 103. Sun, February 22, 1936, 1. 104. Columbian, March 1 1 , 1936, 1 . 105- D - L . R . , 1936, V o l . I l l , 644. 106. Patti i l lo Papers, June \30, 1936 and July 7, 1936. 199 107. I b i d . , Ju ly 6, 1936 and Ju ly 7, 1936. 108. Olmstead, III, 231. 109- I b i d . , 239-110. D.G. Cre ighton, "Federal Relat ions in Canada Since 1914," Canada in  Peace and War, edi ted by Chester Martin (Toronto: Oxford Un ive rs i t y Press , 1941), 29-111. Ib id . , 31-35. 112. I b i d . , 30. 113. G . F . G . S tan ley , "Act or Pact?" Another Look at Confedera t ion ," Confederat ion, edi ted by Ramsay Cook, Craig Brown and Carl Berger, Canadian H i s t o r i c a l Readings No. 3 (Toronto: Un ivers i ty of Toronto Press , 1967), 112. This is quoted in C a i r n s ' a r t i c l e , "The J u d i c i a l Committee and i ts C r i t i c s . " 114. Eugene Forsey was more aware of the sec t iona l ism within the country as a cause for the weakening of federal , power. Dismayed by the d i v i s i v e forces he applauded the federal government's disal lowance of three A lber ta Acts in August, 1937. He suggested that wider acceptance of dominion powers of disal lowance would be necessary i f the nat ion was to s u r v i v e . "Disal lowance of P r o v i n c i a l A c t s , " C . J . E . S . P . , V o l . IV (February-November, 1938), 59. .115. Mai l o r y , "The Courts and the Sovereignty of the Canadian Par l iament , " 169. 116. H.A. Innis, "Economic Trends" , Canada in Peace and War, 84. 117. I b i d . , 83. 118. C O . Stuart pointed out the s i m i l a r i t i e s between these two groups in a l e t t e r to the e d i t o r . Prov ince , March 14, 1930, 19. 119. See Appendix C, S tar r Bros. 200 CHAPTER SIX 1. B r i t i s h Columb i a , Report of the Br i t? sh Columb ia Cbmmi ss ion on  M i lk , 195^-1955 ( V i c t o r i a , Queen's P r i n t e r , 1955), .11. 2..' B . C . R . , Vol . L I , 432. 3. I b i d . , LI I 1, 61. 4. Ib id. 5. Sun, December 18, 1936, 2. 6. Columbian, March 1 , 1938, 6. 7 - Prov ince , February 28, 1942, 2. 8. I b i d . , June 18,. 1936, 1. 9. W.J . Park, W.T. McArthur, T .M. Edwards. 10. Sun, October 16, 1936, 1. 11. ColUmbian, September 16, 1936, 4. 12. Sun, September 29, 1936, 1. 13. I b i d . , October 3, 1936, 31- Sun Columnist , Bob Bouchette, interviewed both Gardom and Park in order to present the conf1 i c t ing points of v i ew. E . C . Car r , Milk Board Commissioner from 1946 to 1968 claims that more o ld barns were owned by F .V .M .P .A . members than by independents. He did not consider that th is n e c e s s a r i l y meant they were poor farmers. The i r c o n s i s t e n t l y lower returns prevented them from invest ing in new barns. 14. Columbian, March 1, 1938, 6. 15. I b i d . , May 29, 1937, 1. Olmstead, III, 280. 16. B . C . R . , LI I, 179. 17. Olmstead, III, 279-18. I b i d . , 292. 19. I b i d . , 288-292. 20. Ib id. , 291. 21. Growers were provided with tags for t h e i r produce according to t h e i r quota. The presence of the tag indicated that the grower was 201 complying with Board regu la t ions . 22. There are several newspaper accounts which i l l u s t r a t e both the zeal and the r e s i s t a n c e . -Richard Massey was sentenced to one month . in j a i1 because he had refused the opportunity to equip himself with tags and had h i t ' the Board inspector twice. Columbian, December 24, 1936, 5. A Chinese truck d r i v e r who f a i l e d to stop for inspect ion was chased into New Westminster and back to Richmond by.a marketing board inspector and a policeman. The Chinese was prosecuted in New Westminster where he was convicted of assau l t and f i n e d . The inspector and policeman were.prosecuted in Richmond where they were committed for t r i a l in a higher cour t . Columbian, September 1, 1936, 1 and October 9, 1936, 1. The same inspector was involved in another case where both he and a Chinese.were charged with a s s a u l t . Columbian, March 11, 1937, 1. As f r i c t i o n between Chinese and white growers i t e n s i f i e d , 35 Lulu Island farmers picketed the Eburne and Fraser. Street bridges in order to support market c o n t r o l . Columbian, February 23, 1937, 1, March 2, 1937, 1. 23. I b i d . , September 11, 1936, 1. 2k. I b i d . , November 18, 1936, 3-25. I b i d . , November 19, 1936, 12. 26. I b i d . , November 21, 1936, 1, November 26, 1936, 14. 27. T . G . N o r r i s , "Legal Problems in R e l a t i o n . t o Marketing L e g i s l a t i o n , " C . J . E . P . S . , V o l . XX, September, 1939, 45. 28. I b i d . , 46. 29. J.W. Berry was charged with s e l l i n g milk otherwise than through a designated agency. He had a p r iva te arrangement whereby he suppl ied a Burnaby dealer with the knowledge and consent of t h e . F . V . M . P . A . . and paid the levy to the Cooperat ive. The Board's .at tempt to stop th is i r regu la r arrangement f a i l e d because o f . a : t e c h n i c a l I ty. • Berry was charged with sel1 ing in "New Westminster, but the dealer operated in Burnaby. Columbian, A p r i l 9, 1936, 1. A charge against T . G . McLean, a C l o v e r d a l e . d a i r y farmer, who was a lso an F .V .M .P .A . member^ was d ismissed . I b i d . , May 28, 1936, 1. 30.. Columbian, August 25, 1937, k. 31. Prov ince , September 4, 1937, 1. 32. Columbian,.September 21 , 1937, 1 . 33. "Whereas i t is the opinion of the board that the best in teres ts of the dai ty industry would be served by the appointment of a neutral board to administer the milk marketing scheme 202 Therefore be i t resolved- that the. M in is ter o f . A g r i c u l t u r e be requested to amend the milk marketing scheme forthwith to permit the appoihtment of a.marketing.board one member of which s h a l l be the choice of the F . V . M . P . A . , one member the choice of those producers marketing the i r milk through channels other than the above a s s o c i a t i o n , and a . t h i r d member to be se lected by these two, f a i l i n g agreement thereon the choice of the th i rd member be l e f t to the m i n i s t e r . " Provinee, September 21 , 1937, 3-34. Columbian, October 8, 1937, 2. 35- C o l . C E . Edgett , former Chief Constable in Vancouver had been f i r s t cho ice . He had accepted, then'changed his mind. Provinee, October 21, 1937, 1• 36. I b i d . , January 22, 1938, 15-37. I b i d . , January 31 , 1938, 17-38. I b i d . , February 17, 1938, 20. 39. Prov ince , March 16, 1938, 3. March 19, 1938, 3-P a t t u l l o pointed out in a reply to the 21,500 1etters that the Mi lk Board ca r r i ed out d e t a i l s of the operat ion of the Mi lk Marketing Board but the general p o l i c y was l a id down by the government and administered by the Min is ter of A g r i c u l t u r e . 40. I b i d . , Apri1 13, 1938, 7. 41. I b i d . , May 9, 1938, 1. 42. I b i d . , August 24, 1938, 1. Columbian, August 24, 1938, 1. 43- Of the reg is tered producers 83% voted. In favor of control Against control Coop 1616 79 I ndep 276 256 Total 1892 335 In favor of a s i n g l e agency In favor of two or more agencies 1845 364 2209 Prov ince , November 17, 1938, 13. Columbian,.November 17, 1938, 1. 44. P rov ince , December 16, 1938, 13. 45. I b i d . , March 3, 1939, 6. Carmichael was a member and staunch supporter of the F.V..M.P.A. Obviously Barrow had won Wi l l i ams ' support in th is cho ice . . ' 203 46. Columbian, A p r i l 18, 1939, 4. 47. Prov ince , A p r i l 19, 1939, 29. 48. I b i d . , A p r i l 27, 1939, 1• May 1, 1939, 7-49. I b i d . , A p r i l 29, 1939, 1-50. W.A. Hayward, Jersey Farms, Turner Da i r ies L imi ted , Guernsey D a i r i e s , Crescent D a i r i e s , George Drake, Hugh Savage. 51. Prov ince , May 1, 1939, 7. 52. B . C : R . , LIV, 201. 53. I b i d . , 299. 54. I b i d . , 304, 308. 55. Provi nee, June 8, 1939, 5. 56. Ib id . 57. Columb ian , Ju ly 12, 1939, 3. Barrow questioned how long the 83 percent dog could stand being wagged by the 17 percent t a i l . i 58. There appears to have been a great d e a l - o f .d i s s a t i s f a c t ion,,. over the appointment of W.E. Wil l iams as chairman of the Mi lk Board. There were suggest ions, that the appointment was a p o l i t i c a l one, but the main c r i t i c i s m was undoubtedly that voiced by Dean Clement at the Milk Inquiry h e a r i n g . i n 1954 when he sa id Wil l iams made the plan of equa l i za t ion so complicated that he contradicted h imse l f . Proceedings, 1480. 59- P rov ince , October.31, 1939, 19-60. Turner ' s Dai ry , Jersey Farms, Guernsey.Breeders, Hoy 's .Crescent Dai ry , George A. Drake, W.A. Hayward, Avalon. Dai ry , Empress D a i r i e s , Glenburn Da i ry , Melrose D a i r i e s , Charles Hawthorne. C o l o n i s t , August 30, 1936, 6. . 61. B. C. R., LIV, 241. 62. I b i d . , LV, 81-82. 63. Prov ince , August 26, ' 1940,' 1. 64. D . L . R . , 1941, 2, 279. 65. Prov ince , March 12, 1941, 14. 66. I b i d . , March 18, 1941 , 16. 204 67. I b i d . , October 7, 1941, 1. 68. I b i d . , October 15, 1941, 1. November 1, 1941, 9, 25. 69- I b i d . , December 20, 1941 , 39. 70. Canada, Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincia l Relat ions .(Ottawa: . K ing 's P r i n t e r , 1941) (ReeOmmendations,.Book III), 1940, Chapter 4, 56 ; 71. B r i t i s h Columbia, Report of the Marketing Boards Inquiry.Commission, 1942, 3. 72. Mi lk Inquiry Report, 1928, 109-73- Prov ince , March 10, 1944, 2. 74. I b i d . , March 14, .1944, 3. The fact that independents belonged to several d i f f e r e n t groups was one.of the reasons that a Mi lk Board es tab l ished on a representat ional p r i n c i p l e couId.not.work. In February, 1939 a f te r E .G . Sherwood defeated Gardom 375 to 275 to become independent representat ive on the .new.s ingle agency, Gardom charged that nei ther Sherwood nor Ki1 by who was e lected independent representat ive on the L .M.D.P. Milk Board had favored the p lan . 75. Prov ince , Ju ly 7, 1.95.1. 4. 76. I b i d . , October 22, 1951 , 1 . 77. I b i d . , October 23, 1951, 1. 78. I b id . , . January 24, 1952, 1. 79- I b i d . , January 25, 1952, 1 . 80. I b id . , . February 7, 1952, 9. 81. I b i d . , . A p r i1 17, 1952, 1. 82. Vancouver c i t i z e n s drank 3.43% less milk and cream during the f i r s t s i x months of 1952 than in the same period -In 1951. 1951 1952 Home d e l i v e r i e s 23,326,232 q t s . 21,905,398 q t s . Store sa les '10,624,516 q t s . 10,878,011 q t s . Decrease for home d e l i v e r i e s 6.09 % Overal l decrease 3-43 % These are Mi lk Board f i g u r e s , publ ished in the Sun, October 21, 1952, 15. 83. Mrs. Kiernan is a granddaughter of J . A . Evans and a grandniece of C H . Evans. 205 84. Prov ince , August 19, 1952, 13. 85. I b i d . , August 27r 1:952, 1.. 86. Premier Bennett, i n s t i t u t i n g h is "second l o o k " ' p o l i c i e s , announced that i f decontrol harmed the farmer, he would change i t back again, Prov ince , May 16, 1953, 20. 87. Sun, A p r i l 7, 1953, 9-88. I b i d . , August 7, 1953,21. 89. Sun, August 5, 1953, 12. Prov ince , August 5, 1953, 1. 90. B i r t Showier, secretary of the Mi lk Drivers and Dairy Employees Union Local No. 464, inserted an ad in the paper which presented the view that the job of the mi 1kman:shou1d not be endangered "to give chains a break, or p o l i t i c i a n s a chance to push him around to p ick up v o t e s . " Sun, A p r i l 24, 1953, 23. 9 1 • Prov ince , May 14, 1953, 26.. 92. I b i d . , Apri1 10, 1953, 30. 93- I b i d . , A p r i l 9, 1953, 30. 94. I b i d . , September 15, 1953, 6. 95- I b i d . , September 23, 1953, 6. 96. I b i d . , June 19, 1953, 21. 97- I b i d . , September 21, 1953, 1 . 98. Sun, June 7, 1954, 1. 99. Chi 11iwack Progress, June 16, 1954, 1. 100. Sun, May 29, 1954, 1. 101. Chi 11iwack Progress, May 19, 1954, 1. 102. Sun, February 26, 1954, 12. 103. I b i d . , May 18, 1954, 2. 104. Ib id . 105. Report of Royal Commission,,1954, 30. 106. The evidence of Norman D. Hoy, manager.of the Royal C i ty D a i r i e s , w i l l s u f f i c e . Hoy could not get from independent producers the q u a l i t y of milk required by the Health Department. He "swung 206 to the Fraser Va l l ey" in order to stay in bus iness . Proceed i ngs of the Royal Comrri? s s i o n , 3323. 107- Report, 36. 108. I b i d . , 31. 109. Ibid., 1 10. I b i d . , 40. 111. Ib id . 112. In reaching his conclusions about the need fo r a formula and in suggesting how i t should be implemented, Clyne r e l i e d on the advice of Dr. Leland Spencer, Professor of Marketing at Cornel l U n i v e r s i t y . Professor Spencer had been brought to the Inquiry to provide impart ial and well informed adv ice . Clyne a lso took, the opportuni ty to quest ion Dr. R;W. B a r t l e t t , Professor of Agr icu1 tura l Economics at. the Un ive rs i t y of I 11 inois, Ch icago , , who had been brought to the Inquiry by Canada Safeway. Sverre Omdahl, D i rec tor of A g r i c u l t u r e , State of Washington and Dr. Walton J . Anderson,. P r o f e s s o r . o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, The Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia were a lso consu l ted . 113- Prov ince , January 21, 1956, 1. 114. I b i d . , March 1, 1956, 17-115- Sun,,December 12, 1956, 9-116. Report, v i i . 1 1 7- D- L- R- 17 (2d) 637, 638. 118. I b i d . , 22 (2d),,321. 119. I b i d . , 17 (2d) , 640. 120. Canada, S ta tu tes , 13 George VI ,-.Chapter . 16, 93, 94. 121 . D . L . R . , 2, 1952, 726. 122. I b i d . , 4, 1952, 146. 123. Report, 32. 124. Ib id. 207 CHAPTER SEVEN 1. James E. Boyle , "Co-operat ives and Common Sense," The Nat ion 's  Bus i ness, Washington, D . C , January, 1929, as quoted in The  B r i t i s h Columbian, New Westminster, B . C . , February 13, 1929, 10. 2. "Fraser Val ley Mi 1k-producers," Agr icu l tura1 J o u r n a l , Vol . 8, No. 2, A p r i l , 1923, 28. This was a synopsis of an address de l ivered by the H o n . E . Dodsley Barrow, Min is ter of A g r i c u l t u r e at the F . V . M . P . A . annual general meeting, March 9, 1923. 3. Vancouver Prov ince , as c i ted in the Chi11iwack Progress, August k, 1927, 1. k. In answer to the charges made by a long-time independent at one of the Mi lk Inquiry hearings in 195^, Mercer is sa id to have r e p l i e d , "I deny the a 11egation and I defy the a l l i g a t o r . " Th is remark has not been preserved in the record of proceedings, but the story s t i l l c i rc les the V a l l e y . 5- B u t t e r f a t , October, 1959, 4. 6. Alan M i t c h e l l , who began operat ing the C i ty Dairy in Ch i l l iwack in 19^6 in partnership with Gordon Higginson and Douglas Barker, r e c a l l s that the F .V .M .P .A . asked them to purchase the i r milk from the Cooperat ive. When they refused and pers is ted in buying from the independents to whom they were committed, Mercer s a i d , according to M i t c h e l l , "We' l l give you f i v e years and i f i t takes every cent we have, w e ' l l put you o f f the road . " Interview, August 20, 1970. 7. Chi 11iwack Progress, A p r i l 6, 1922, 1. and Ju ly 18, 1916, 27-8. Ib id. , October 20, 1927, 1. 9. The annual report of the Ch i l l iwack Creamery for 1907 noted that Macken devoted much time to the Creamery and s t a t e d , "It is to h is c a p a b i l i t i e s to a great extent that the company is as f l o u r i s h i n g as i t i s . " Chi 11iwack Progress, March'18, 1908, 1. The annual report for 1911 l i s t e d among the reasons for the success of the Creamery the " t a c t f u l , keen-s ighted" secretary who contr ibuted to the good management of the Cooperat ive . I b i d . , December 20, 1911, 6. 10. I b i d . , September, 19, 1916,- 8. 11. Macken was s u f f e r i n g more-from fa t igue than i l l - h e a l t h . He accepted a pos.it ion on the f lood r e h a b i l i t a t i o n commission very soon a f t e r his retirement from the F .V .M .P .A . The fac t that the members were surpr ised and dismayed over h is retirement though he was s i x t y - s i x is an ind ica t ion of the place he had come to occupy among Cooperative members. 208 12. Telephone conversat ion with Mrs. Bas i l Gardom, Ju ly 11, 1967• 13. Interview with Everett Crowley, owner of Avalon Dai ry , es tab l i shed by his father in 1907. August 6, 1971-14. B u t t e r f a t , Apr i1, 1929, 14. 15. Chi 11 iwack Progress, as c i ted iii B u t t e r f a t , March, 1948, 22. 16. Ib id . 17. Roya1 Commi ss ion Proceed i ngs, 1954, F 151. 18. B u t t e r f a t , March, 1948, 14. 19. Ib id . 20. Where Tra i Is Meet, 54. -21. B u t t e r f a t , December, 1959, 3. 22. Chi 11iwack Progress, December 8, 1959, as quoted, in B u t t e r f a t , 1959, 10. 23. Though J . J . Brown's story has not been to ld elsewhere, h is family was c l o s e l y connected with the Cooperative from an ear ly p e r i o d . He was a grandson of Chr is Brown who came to America from Northern Ireland in 1879. He t rave l l ed from New York to San Francisco and then north by boat to s e t t l e in B .C. He worked at "grubbing out. stumps" in New Westminster b e f o r e : s e t t l i n g on land in Surrey. One of his sons, Joseph Thomas Brown, born in 1883, had an impressive record of p u b l i c se rv ice as School Board and Council member,-,,as -; Reeve and as Chairman of the Colebrook Dyking Commission. In 1912 the Lower Mainland-Milk Shippers ' Assoc ia t ion attempted to organize farmers to s t r i k e against c i t y dealers who were holding down pr ices because milk from Chi l l iwack was a v a i l a b l e . Though farmers had agreed n o t . t o ship the i r milk on a set date, each met the t r a i n in the Surrey-Del ta area to see what was.happening and when they found others had shipped, sent thei rs -too. Only J . T . Brown and Sam Morley held back. Brown did not leave his farm. Morley, however, had less f a i t h in his neighbors and rode the milk t ra in to Vancouver to prove how s i n g u l a r l y unsuccessful the s t r i k e had been. Interview with J . J . Brown, June 15, 1970. 24. One dairy farmer, now r e t i r e d , who d i s l i k e s r e c a l l i n g that he increased his income $100 a month by shipping to an independent, dealer in 1922-23, sa id that he changed h is mind a f te r a v i s i t from Macken. "The way he explained things made me r e a l i z e how important the Cooperative was," he s a i d . Dozens of others were s i m i l a r l y convinced, pro