172 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 
a statute inimical to the public weal, and its pro- 
hibition was binding upon the state. The legis- 
lature which passed it, the leader who engineered 
it and the governor who failed to veto it, are con- 
jointly entitled to the discredit of the enactment. 
Since such requirements as the making of the 
tuberculin test depend for their trustworthiness 
upon the careful technique of the operation, 
to remove as much as possible the danger of un- 
professional carelessness or dishonesty of unreg- 
ulated practitioners, such ordinances or statutes 
should require that the test be made only by offi- 
cial veterinarians. 
Since milk infections are generally bacterial, 
condemnations of milk are frequently made, and 
sustained in court, because of the large number 
of bacteria contained, though none may be proven 
dangerous to health. The presence of such ab- 
normally large numbers indicates a lack of care 
in the handling of the product. To guard against 
infection, and to assist in tracing responsibility, 
various regulations have been sustained, such as, 
requiring users to wash the milk bottles, prohibit- 
ing the use of milk containers for other purposes, 
or the having in possession by milkmen of bottles 
which had not been washed.?° The Massachusetts 
court refused sanction to an ordinance which pro- 
hibited the sale of ‘‘open’’ milk,?! but the neces- 
sity for such prohibition is now so generally 
recognized that it would probably be sustained. 
The city of Covington prohibited the sale of less 
20 People v. Frudenberg, 140 21 Commonwealth v. Drew, 
N. Y. Supp. 17; Polinsky v. 208 Mass. 493. 
People, 73 N. Y. 65. 
