GOVERNMENTAL INSPECTION 173 
than one gallon in any but transparent receptacles, 
and the ordinance was sustained.22 The Chicago 
ordinance requiring the name of the dealer to be 
blown or stamped on the bottle was upheld.2? 
While condemnation of milk on account of bac- 
terial evidence generally depends upon a large 
content, this is not always so. The presence of 
the colon bacillus is of itself conclusive evidence 
of fecal infection, and its presence is therefore 
sufficient for condemnation.24 In a like manner, 
exposure to a liability of infection with the germs 
of such diseases as typhoid or scarlet fever, or of 
diphtheria, or the finding of tubercle bacilli in 
the milk should be held as sufficient warrant for 
the prohibition of sale from that source until dan- 
ger had passed. 
124, Confiscation. Milk is not an article which 
may be impounded and preserved without un- 
necessary expense. The fact that it has been 
offered for sale, or that an attempt to ship it con- 
trary to law has been made, is sufficient justifica- 
tion for its confiscation and destruction.2® To 
simply refuse such milk admission to the city 
would leave the violator free to attempt another 
22 Covington yv. Kollman, 156 
Ky. 351, 160 8. W. 1052. 
23 Chicago v. Bowman Dairy 
Co.. 234 Ill 294. The Ohio 
statute providing for the sei- 
24 Dade v. United States, 40 
App. D. C. 94. 
25 Adams v. Milwaukee, 144 
Wis. 371, 129 N. W. 518; sus- 
tained, 228 U. 8. 572; Nelson 
zure and confiscation of bottles 
bearing a distinctive name, 
blown or marked in them, when 
found in the possession of others 
was declared unconstitutional, 
because more extensive than 
title implied. State v. Schmuck, 
717 Ohio, 438, 83 N. E, 797. 
v. Minneapolis, 112 Minn. 16; 
Blazier v. Miller, 10 Hun, 435; 
Deems v. Mayor, 80 Md. 164; 
Shivers v. Newton. 45 N. J. L. 
469, 
