762 
fat and of total solids in whole milk from 3 per cent and 12 per cent, 
respectively, as fixed by the milk law of March 2, 1895, to 3J per cent 
and 12J per cent, respectively. By the same act a standard for the 
chemical composition of cream was fixed, requiring a minimum of 20 
per cent butter fat, and this act changed generally the method of pro- 
curing samples. By the act making appropriations for the expenses 
of the District of Columbia, approved April 27, 1904, the following pro- 
visos bearing upon the enforcement of the laws and regulations relat- 
ing to the sale of milk were enacted, and they were repeated in each of 
the District appropriation bills passed until that of May 26, 1908 : 
Provided, That no officer or employee of the health department shall, during 
his continuance in office, serve in his private capacity for fee, gift, or reward 
any person licensed to keep or maintain a dairy or dairy farm in said District, 
or to bring or to send milk into the said District, or any person who has applied 
or is about to apply for such license, or any manufacturer or dealer in foods, 
drugs, or disinfectants, or similar materials: Provided , further, That every 
place where milk is sold shall be deemed a dairy under the law for purposes of 
inspection.® 
The first of these provisos was inserted in the then pending appro- 
priation bill in connection with a proposed increase in the salaries 
of the employees in the service of the health department whom the 
proviso was most likely to affect— that is, the inspectors of dairy 
farms. The increase in salaries was not made, but the proviso was 
allowed to remain. The effect was to deprive the inspectors of dairy 
farms of certain of the opportunities that they had previously had 
to add to the scant incomes that their official positions provided. Of 
these opportunities they had theretofore been'allowed to avail them- 
selves from time to time as demands were made for their professional 
services, and they had done so without criticism or complaint. The 
principle laid down in this proviso is, however, recognized as emi- 
nently wise and proper, and yet it would seem that the fact should 
be recognized that its enactment into law reduced the possible in- 
comes from private sources of the employees who come within its 
scope, and that due compensation should be made because of that 
fact. The second proviso has unfortunately failed entirely to accom- 
plish the purpose for which presumably it was enacted — that is, to 
require every vendor of milk to provide himself with facilities for 
storing and distributing it similar to those required of proprietors 
of licensed dairies under like circumstances. The failure of the pro- 
viso has been due to the insertion of the words, “ for purposes of 
inspection,” the effect of which has been to limit the purpose for 
which places can be regarded as dairies, in which places milk is sold 
merely as an incident to some other business, to but one single thing, 
inspection. Neither for purpose ^of licensing or construction or man- 
agement do the dairy regulations apply. 
® 33 Stats., 383. 
