380 



BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. [Pub. Doc. 



YeAES ending J0NK 30 — 



Retail. 



1891, . 



1892, . 



1893, . 



1894, . 



1895, . 



1896, . 



1897, . 



1898, . 



1899, . 

 Present year, 



The methods of the Bureau have been attacked in court 

 on five points, which have been taken to the supreme court 

 in the cases against Mullen, Sulfolk County, May 17, and 

 against Ryberg, Worcester County, October 18. Our prac- 

 tice has been vindicated on every point. 



A statute of 1884 provided for certain marks on tubs, 

 boxes and wrapping paper used in connection with sales of 

 oleomargarine. The same act also provided certain details 

 in regard to samples of milk. Section 4 of this act said 

 that "before commencing the analysis of any sample the 

 person making the same shall reserve a portion, and in case 

 of a complaint against any person the reserved portion of 

 the sample alleged to be adulterated shall upon application 

 be delivered to the defendant or his attorney." Subsequent 

 legislation provided other details in the milk law which led 

 the supreme court to declare the above section 4 to be re- 

 pealed by implication. The oleomargarine people main- 

 tained that the supreme court meant to say that only so 

 much of the law as related to milk was repealed, and they 

 insisted that the law was in effect when samples of oleo- 

 margarine were analyzed. The chemists of the Bureau, 

 under instruction from the general agent, did not reserve 

 portions of oleomargarine which they tested, as he claimed, 



