No. 4.] RP:P0RT of dairy bureau. 405 



opportunity for studying the composition of the product in 

 which he deals and of keeping informed as to its quality. 

 Practical experience, however, shoM^s that in the majority of 

 cases such laws are merely a weapon in the hands of those who 

 would embarrass the enforcement of the law. The law is of 

 no value to the better class of producers and dealers, for the 

 reason that they get none of these notices. In some depart- 

 ments samples taken are submitted to preliminary tests, and 

 only the suspicious ones analyzed ; in one department it is 

 held that the law is complied with by sending notices only 

 to those who are to be prosecuted. If, however, the law is 

 to remain on the statute books, the ten-day limit should be 

 modified, as it is so short as to impede the enforcement of 

 the law. 



Then, again, there is no agreement as to the meaning of the 

 law. It does not provide, as does chapter 318, section 3, 

 Acts of 1886, that a failure to send the required notice will 

 invalidate proceedings in court ; and one judge has held that 

 the law has nothing to do with court practice under the milk 

 laws, and has fined a man when no notice was sent ; in another 

 case another judge made an opposite ruling, and discharged 

 the defendant because no notice was sent. 



Then, again, there is no agreement among authorities as to 

 how much of an analysis shall be made. The Attorney- 

 General advised us : " The law only requires 3'ou to report 

 to the person from whom you took the sample the result of 

 whatever analysis is made by authority of your Board." 



A few days after receiving this opinion we took a sample 

 from a dealer, ascertained the amount of total solids, re- 

 ported the result within ten days, and then complained of 

 him for handling milk not of standard quality. The de- 

 fence raised the point that merely reporting the amount of 

 the total milk solids was not < ' reporting the result of an 

 analysis." The judge sustained this view of the case, and 

 discharged the defendant. This judge held that, while the 

 law did not contemplate so complete an analysis as going to 

 the extreme limit, and ascertaining the amount of carbon, 

 oxygen, nitrogen, etc., found in the milk, it did mean that 

 more than one constituent or group of constituents should 

 be ascertained and reported, 



