View report page

22
of such a milk is liable for a civil wrong to the purchaser.
But is the vendor fairly open to prosecution for a criminal
offence when the analyst, if skilfully cross-examined, would
have to say that this milk might have been misdistributed by
accident or stupidity, and altogether without fraudulent intent
Moreover, the sole profit accrues to the purchase!'
who happens to receive the undue share of cream. I submit
that, in such cases:—
(a) The Vendor has an equal right to be credited with
any excess, as to be debited with any deficiency, in his
milk-solids.
(b) By judging the milk upon its aggregated milksolids
we get a simpler and fairer, and more easily
understood standard.
(c) A milk, when below the limit for its aggregated
milk-solids—say below 11.5%—should be condemned
as an adulterated milk.
(d) An adulterated milk should have its added water
measured, not by a milk at the bottom-limit of variation,
but by comparison with "a fair average milk."
(e) And it has been abundantly shown that "a fair
average milk" contains fully 12.50% of genuine milksolids.
I remain, dear Sir,
Very faithfully yours,
JAMES EDMUNDS.
Richard Bannister, Esq., F.C.S., &c., &c., &c.,
Government Laboratory.
And the following reply was received :—
" Government Laboratory,
[Copy.] Clement's Inn Passage,
Strand, London, W.C.,
December 1 kth, 1897.
Dear Sir,
I appreciate the kind words used in the second and
fifth paragraphs of your letter of the Sth inst. respecting
this department, and can truly say that our aim is to
administer the Foods' Acts in a just and impartial manner.
The maceration process, as. applied to a sour milk is given
in the second part of Bell's book p.p. 16 to 18, but the
additions made for loss by keeping are made in a different
manner to what is there described.