287 
Second. That ice cream as made by present processes is noninjurious to 
health and satisfactory in quality to the consumer. 
Third. That the manufacturer and consumer are at one in their respective 
understandings* of the term as now used. 
Fourth. That the present process of manufacturing, including the formulae, 
accords with the accepted meaning of the term in our standard dictionaries, 
also with its history. 
Fifth. That it is not misbranding to apply the term ice cream to the usual 
frozen products by that name. 
Sixth. That cream is not a specific term used only as a name for the fatty 
part of milk, this being one of several applications of the word. 
Seventh. That Article f of Regulation 12, Section 8, does not apply to ice 
cream, as the name of this article is not derived from one of its constituents but 
from its own qualities as a product. 
Eighth. That the process to which the Agricultural Department proposes to 
apply the term is not the ice cream of commerce or the home, but a new product. 
Ninth. That no definition fixing a standard of milk fat is practicable or 
desirable. 
Tenth. That the term ice cream has become a valuable trade name, the 
establishment of which, by advertising and other means, has required the ex- 
penditure of large sums. 
Eleventh. That, without good cause, the Government has no right to con- 
demn the term ice cream for application exclusively to another product. 
Twelfth. That, as a model for general acceptance by the States, the Depart- 
ment’s definition should be amended in accordance with our definition. 
Under the heading “ Trade Customs,” the Lancet makes some very 
proper comments as to the dishonest practices of which many vendors 
and manufacturers are guilty under the convenient designation of 
u trade customs.” Our contemporary observes that the term “ trade 
customs ” in some quarters appears to be the modern synonym for 
malpractices. 
So many defendants shelter themselves, or attempt to shelter themselves, 
behind the plea of trade custom that it would be interesting to have a list of 
“ trade customs ” published. 
The public have a right to know what trade customs are. We doubt very 
much if the public know quite as much about them as the trade. Police court 
proceedings enlighten us considerably at times, but there are so many “ trade 
customs” that we plead for a glossary of them. We fancy that we should be 
fairly safe in saying that such a compilation w T ould open our eyes to a string 
of petty practices designed more or less to cheat the purchasing public ; trade 
customs in fact, which, though approved by the trade, are, strictly speaking, 
illegal transactions. We should like to see appointed a royal commission on 
“ trade customs.” The selection of the commissioners, who, of course, would be 
authorities on the subject, would be interesting, and the evidence of the wit- 
nesses would at least be amusing if not instructive. The final report would 
have the word “ swindle ” written in every one of its conclusions — that is to 
say if the commissioners honestly set about their business. These may be 
strong words, but day by day we read in policd court proceedings how indict- 
ment after indictment is met by the sickening excuse of “ trade customs.” 
Brown paper is found in the soles of boots ; it is a trade custom. Silk containing 
