View report page

26
Government Laboratory,
[Copy.] Clement's Inn Passage,
Strand, W.C.,
January 5th, 1898.
Dear Sir,
In your letter of yesterday's date you ask me two
questions, to the second of which I have already replied
in my letters of November 16th and December 24th, viz.,
that the sample of milk was tested* for Alcohol, Ammonia,
and acids, and that no additionf was made for loss.
In reply to your first question may I refer you to the
fourth paragraph of my letter of December 14th? You
will there see that I have not used the term "standard,"
and the reason is also given for not doing so.
The interpretation of the law is the special function of
Magistrates and Judges who try such cases, and you cannot
therefore expect me to say more on the points raised in
your first question.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) E. BANNISTEE.
Dr. Edmunds, M.D.
Yestry Hall,
[Copy.] Piccadilly, W„
January 1th, 1898.
Ee Milk Reference "No. 53."
Dear Sir,
I thank you for yours of the 5th instant, and for your
answer. That answer closes the questions as to the
significance of your certificate.
But I cannot understand your reply to my question as to
the new point which you introduced in the last paragraph
of your letter of December 24th, and your reference to
your previous letter does not help me.
In yours of December 24th it is obvious that you did use
the word standard. You also suggested that " the use of
12.5 % milk-solids as a standard for comparison is not
* This is no answer. Vidr foot-note, page 24.
†Reference to the letter will show that Mr. Bannister's then statement
was "practically no addition."