View report page

3
addition. Subsequently, in reply to interrogatories from
myself, it stated, that "practically no addition" had been
made; ultimately it admitted that "no addition" had
been made. These written statements are irreconcilable.
7. Whereas I had certified that the sample contained
12% of added water—in comparison with "good
average milk''; only by laborious interrogation was it
subsequently elicited that the "not less than 3% of added
water"—as calculated at the Government Laboratory—
depended upon a comparison with milk at that point of
poverty at which it only just escapes condemnation as
adulterated. Which of these standards should be used
for comparison with a condemned milk—the object being
to secure fair play as between vendor and purchaser—is a
common-sense question of great importance. For the
consideration of this question no better jury could be
formed than the Public Health Committee of St. James's
Vestry. Another question is, Whether a milk should be
judged by its percentage of milk-solids in the aggregate?
Or, by a deficiency in one kind of milk-solids—an excess
in the milk-solids of another kind not being credited to
the vendor as a set-off against the deficiency.
8. In this particular prosecution, the accuracy of
my own analytical findings, the fairness of my deductions,
and the completeness of my certificate were all admitted,
yet, owing to the Government Laboratory setting up
the poorest passable milk as a standard, and owing to
its non-compliance with the law as to making clear the
standard taken for the calculation of the percentage of
added water, a serious divergency in conclusion was
suggested to the mind of the learned Magistrate. To
appeal on the ground that the certificate from the Government
Laboratory was incomplete and misleading would
amount to a public scandal. It would, in any event, be a
severe infliction upon the defendant, and it would
certainly involve heavy law-costs. The question raised by
the events of this prosecution are therefore of large importance
to the working of the Adulteration Acts.
The great body of Public Analysts throughout the country
contain among their number many eminent chemists—men
who have done much to advance those processes by which
adulterants in food and drugs are now detected. Yet a proper
appeal court is necessary for the revision or endorsement of
the analytical findings which become the basis for prosecutions
in our courts of justice. It is obvious, however, that
chaotic, incomplete, and contradictory statements—such as,
in the annexed correspondence, appear to have emanated from
the Government Laboratory—must be severely dealt with;
otherwise, the entire administration of the Adulteration Acts
will be thrown into confusion and uncertainty.