View report page

2 5
Vestry Hall,
[Copy.] Piccadilly, W.,
January 4th, 1898.
Re Milk Reference "No. 53."
Dear Sir,
I thank you for answering one more of the questions.
This answer shews that the divergency in our conclusions
was due entirely to our using different standards of milk for
comparison with the adulterated sample, and it closes that
point.
I think that you under-estimate the intelligence of the Members
of the Public Health Committee of St. James's, when
you assume that they will regard as intelligible your replies
upon the remaining questions.
With a view to save us all the trouble which would be
caused by their appealing to the Home Secretary for these
data, I therefore trouble you with one more letter, and I
ask you to favour me with answers to the following
questions:—
1. What ground have you for suggesting that the law
does not "permit us to use as a standard of comparison
12.5% milk-solids" ? As I read the Acts,
my standard of 12.5% milk-solids is just as permissible
as your standard of 8.5% solids-not-fat.
2. Were the Alcohol, Ammonia and acids in this sample
determined? If yes, will you favour me with the
figures of those determinations ? If nothing was
added for loss, will you kindly say so ? If something
was added, will you favour me with the figures of
the amount added, and the method by which that
amount was deduced from the aforesaid determinations.
With the compliments of the season.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) JAMES EDMUNDS.
Richard Bannister, Esq., F.C.S.,
&c., &c., &c.