THE MICROSCFPE. 91 



there would have been but little question on the subject. The case 

 is one of selfishness and prejudice arrayed against the interest of the 

 people, the poorer classes more particularly. Only, let the article be 

 sold for what it is and not for genuine butter. Impartial analysis 

 has never yet condemned it. Very recently the New York Board of 

 Health, being urged to take action against its use, referred it to 

 Prof. Chandler, State Chemist, for examination and analysis. His 

 report will be likely to stand as a permanent verdict. He says it is 

 superior to lower grades of dairy butter; that there is nothing objec- 

 tionable in the material, and as there is nothing unwholesome in 

 oleomargarine, he sees no need of legislation to protect the public 

 health. — Pacific Medical and Surgical Journal.. 



A stringent law has been passed in two of the States against the 

 adulteration of food and drugs. It is greatly needed. The editor 

 of this paper, passing through a spice factory, found every label 

 false, and the owner admitted it. The excitement on the sugar 

 adulteration, like the furore against swill milk, rises now and then, 

 but soon subsides. The fatal weakness of our wise and good laws 

 in this country is that there is nobody to look after their enforce- 

 ment. It used to be said on Mississippi steamboats, "If you want 

 to enjoy your dinner, don't look into the kitchen." It may now be 

 said, "If you want to feel safe while you are eating, know as little as 

 you can about the elements of which your food is composed." But 

 whether these laws be enforced or not, we can be sure of eggs and 

 meat, and fruit and potatoes, and of milk, (if we keep a cow,) and 

 of home-made bread, (if we keep an eye to the baking-powder.) 

 The coffee drinkers can be sure of their coffee, if they roast it and 

 grind it; but the tea drinkers must walk by faith in the grocer. — Ex. 



Vinegar Adulteration. — In Glasgow, Sheriff Balfour gave 

 decision in a case under the food and drugs act. The accused, 

 George Lindsay, grocer and provision merchant, was charged with 

 having sold to Robert Inglis, sanitary inspector a bottle of malt 

 vinegar, which on analysis was found did not contain any of the 

 constituents of malt vinegar, with the Exception of 5.48 per cent, of 

 glacial acetic acid, water, and a trace of saccharine matter. The 

 Sheriff, in passing sentence, said the question in this case was simply 

 this, whether it was malt vinegar that was sold, or acetic acid and 

 water. Malt vinegar was asked for but he held it was not malt 



