View report page

BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON COUNCIL AGENDA.—January 3rd 1902.
APPENDIX "C."
Report of the Medical Officer of Health referred to in the Report of the Public Health
Committee, No. VIII. (4) on Agenda.
To the Chairman and Members of the Public Health Committee.
Gentlemen,
The Carriage of Milk by Railway in Unsealed or Unfastened Churns.
There is a matter of great importance in connection with the carriage of milk by rail, to which I
would draw your particular attention.
In nearly every prosecution for the adulteration of milk taken against the large vendors, the
defence of warranty is raised, but in addition the defendants nearly always declare that the milk was
sold as it was received from the farmer. When, however, the latter is appealed to he declares,
and I think generally truthfully, that he has not tampered with it, but has sent it to London just as
it came from his cows, pure milk with all its cream. The inference therefore naturally arises that it
has been tampered with on the railway, an event which I believe to be of very rare occurrence.
There could, however, have been no tampering with the churns if they had been locked or sealed.
When the vendors or consignors are asked in Court why they did not seal or lock their churns,
they invariably declare that the Railway Companies will not allow them to do so, as it would interfere
with the examination, the measuring, or the weighing of the contents.
In studying the evidence of the Departmental Commission on Milk, I find that this statement is
absolutely incorrect, for in a letter dated 29th May 1899 (see correspondence appended hereto) the
Assistant Secretary of the Board of Agriculture inquired of the Railway Companies' Association
through the Board of Trade if it was their practice to require milk churns to be unlocked, and if in
consequence the consignor is unable to take any precautions to prevent persons tampering with their
contents, and in reply was informed by the Railway Companies' Association in a communication dated
12th October 1898 and signed by Sir Henry Oakley, that " senders have been for a long time allowed
"to send milk in sealed cans, the companies accept the declaration of the senders as to the quantity
"conveyed, no extra charge being made ; the only condition the companies require to be fulfilled is
"that the tare weight of the cans shall be stamped on the outside of the can, so that in case of doubt
"the quantity of milk within the churn can be approximately ascertained by allowing 10¾lbs. for each
"gallon of milk declared. It does not appear to the companies that there is any difficulty in the
"senders protecting themselves against alleged loss of milk in transit by sealing, padlocking, or other"wise
fastening the cans."
This letter is therefore of the greatest importance as it altogether disposes of the consignors and
vendors' contention. If, hitherto, this contention has been made in ignorance of the railway
regulations, then the sooner such ignorance is dispelled the better.
I therefore suggest that a communication be addressed to each milk vendor in Islington who
receives milk by rail, advising him to get it delivered to him in sealed, padlocked or fastened churns;
at the same time enclosing a copy of the correspondence laid before the Milk Committee and
cautioning him that if hereafter his milk should be found adulterated and a prosecution follow, the
fact that he has not availed himself of permissible means to protect the milk supply while in transit
will be urged against him, although he may produce a warranty, and that the Court will be asked
to say that he has been guilty of contributory negligence. I would further suggest that the Railway
Companies carrying milk for Islington purveyors not only in the interest of their servants who are
practically looked upon as the delinquents but particularly in that of the public, should insist that
all cans sent to them for delivery shall in future be locked, sealed or fastened.
I make these two suggestions hoping that you may adopt them and that you may also approach
the Railway Companies through the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture with
reference to the second.
I have not the least doubt that, if the Railway Companies refused to carry milk in unfastened
cans, the adulteration of milk would be much checked and the unfortunate farmer would cease
to be so frequently, and I believe often undeservedly, made the scapegoat for the large wholesale milk
vendors in London and elsewhere.
I am, your obedient servant,
A. E. HARRIS,
Town Hall, Islington, N. Medical Officer of Health.
23rd December, 1901.
[ 10 ]