Hollinger Corp.
pH 8.5

ee ee a et et ieee eh Lee al el Ll ee ck a Tl Dl a ae

Ge ree erties Haat ent tee tae tan en tat tne nat tat tne tent Mat Manan?

iu we Court of General Sessions in and

for the City and County of New York
at the December Term, 1876.

Hon. JOSIAH SUTHERLAND,

Presiding.

THE ce alleeas MISDEMEANOR.

‘ /
DANIEL SCHRUMPF. ADULTERATION OF MILK.

Pee renneeecemnirenaienmons Aer cee oe

Jee GU NEB TE

OF
/

W. Pp. PREN TICE,
Counsel to the Board of Llealth for the Prosecution.

NEW YORK:
JOHN F. TROW & SON, PRINTERS,
205-213 East 12TH STREET,
1877.

el ede a ee ee et le ed al heed er aed ed Le) ad hee |

Mae ne Sapo" en alae tee tan en” Satay tent Mad ae tel May ten enl taf ae™™

CONTENTS.
57489 | ia
1. ARGUMENT OF “COUNSEE” - “iam. et PEAR .

a

Byes TOF: ee CAT Rieti © ° fy o2 tom tse
97) SRE, LACTOMETIR: 40. MM acute | «Gulley ca

4. REPORT OF DOCTORS WALLER AND (Gy Connor on

THE COWS OF THE MULFORD FARM

ARGUMENT OF THE COUNSEL:FOR THE
PROSECUTION.

Closing argument of W. P. Prentice, Esq., in the case of the PEOPLE os.
Scurumpr, tried upon an indictment for the adulteration of milk, in
the Court of General Sessions in New York, December 28, 1876, Judge
SUTHERLAND presiding.

May it please the Court and gentlemen of the jury: When
we come, at this stage of the proceedings, to take up the points
of interest and discussion, which have detained you so long, the
first feeling that I have in my mind is one somewhat of com-
miseration for you, that you have suffered so much, though I be-
lieve it to be in a good cause, and then, again, of admiration for
your patience, that you have so pleasantly indulged the learned
gentlemen who represent the defence, in all their efforts to bring
before you the requisite facts to determine this, which for them
and their trade shall be the decisive case, as they have promised.
Now I confess that I have entered upon the discussion with less

Note.—The indictment against the prisoner, Daniel Schrumpf, was of two
counts. The first count charged him with knowledge, ‘‘ knowingly offering
and having for sale,” etc., etc. The second count was drawn under the ordi-
nance quoted in the argument.

About thirty other milk dealers, under like indictments, most of them mem-
bers of ‘‘ The Milk Dealers’ Association,” were brought to trial at the Decem-
ber term of the court, 1876, and this case was selected as the first to be tried.
It was on trial from December 18 to December 28, 1876, adjournment being
had over Saturday and Christmas day—Dec. 23 and 25—and in this interval the
examination of the Mulford herd of cows was made by Doctors Waller and
O'Connor, who testified, on the 27th, to the facts set out in the report in
the appendix.

The prisoner was found guilty.

2

advantages than those which you have been assured of in the
learned gentlemen who represent the “ distinguished defendant,”
as the prisoner has been generally called. I confess that to un-
derstand the language with which your ears have grown familiar,
I have had to take recourse to the dictionary. Yesterday, you
will observe, it was necessary to seek a translation of the word
glutinous, which was termed viscosity. Last night I looked up
the term viscosity, and found that it means glutinousness. I
also, pursuing the same studies and considering the subject
which has interested you for these ten days, have found it a
long road now coming to its turn, indeed a milky way, and
I sought Loomis’ Astronomy to find that a milky way is a
galaxy. This definition may properly refer to the scientific
stars whom you have heard and who have made so distinguished
an appearance. Prof. Loomis, speaking of the “ Milky Way,”
says: “To the naked eye it presents merely a diffused milky
light, stronger in some parts than in others.’ Gentlemen, I
shall endeavor to show you where the strong parts lie. Now it
has been a matter of interest to me, in the discussion which we
have had this morning, to discover what the issue, what the case
was which the learned counsel for the defendant was propos-
ing. Isit the Board of Health that is on trial? Is the ques-
tion that of skimmed milk, or is the question that of the suc-
cess of the distinguished family of the learned professor on the
side of the defence in seeking for “samples of pure, healthy
cow’s milk” which he can compel the witnesses for the prosecu-
tion to taste? You know whether it isor not. I think not. We
proceed under this ordinance: “No milk which has been
watered, adulterated, reduced, or changed in any respect by the
addition of water or other substance, or by the removal of cream,
shall be brought into, held, kept, or offered for sale at any place
in the City of New York, nor shall any one keep, have, or offer
for sale in said city any such milk.” Now the learned counsel
in closing for the defence said that the Court had settled the
question that there was no moral guilt in this case, that the de-
fendant was morally innocent. I ask you, gentlemen, to wait
until you receive the charge of the. Court, for, unless 1 am

———

3

ereatly mistaken, the Court will say to you that it has simply
dismissed one count of the indictment; that there are two
counts, and they embrace the same offence, but as to the moral
guilt or innocence of the defendant, this will be for you to de-
termine.

The Court.—tThe Legislature had constitutional power to au-
thorize the Board of Health to pass the ordinance which I read
to the jury, and to declare a violation of it a misdemeanor.
There is no question of morality in the case; that question has
long been settled in similar cases brought under acts of Parlia-
ment.

Mr. Prenricre.—It seems to me, in deciding whether or not the
prisoner has been guilty, you will have settled a question of
great importance. Remember, gentlemen, that you sit in this
place representing the community in which you live. You are
the people. You are those for whom these ordinances were
made, and the public officers in this case are but your representa-
tives and your servants. It will remain to be found and decided
whether you shall approve of the action that has been taken for
the best interests of the people of New York, or whether you
shall accept the result that is proposed to you by the defence,
whether you will sweep away all safeguards, take away all lim-
its, and leave the clients of these gentlemen, whether you will
leave this class in the community to pursue a trade, whose in-
juries are well known, without any restriction by law or in
courts of justice. Now the vastness of this question tay excuse
to you the length of the trial and the delay in bringing it to a
conclusion. It appears that the daily milk supply of New York
embraces a hundred and fifty thousand quarts by the Erie rail-
road, thirty-six thousand quarts by the Midland railroad.

Mr. Lawrence.—This is not evidence.

Mr. Prentice.—It is an official document.

The Court.—Strictly speaking that is not in evidence.

Mr. Prenrice.—Gentlemen of the jury, in my opinion, which
I believe is founded upon sufficiently accurate facts, there is
bronght into the city of New York about 400,000 quarts of milk
a day, and to that quantity at least 100,000 quarts of water are

4

added, making the daily supply of the so-called commercial
milk of this city as it is sold here. I ask you to remember the
fact at the outset, that we have had the evidence of Mr. Dough-
ty, a milk dealer, about the standard of commercial milk in this
city, and it is corroborated by the evidence on the other side, or
is at least without any conflict of evidence, and is confirmed
by the evidence of our inspectors. Mr. Doughty tells you that
the standard of commercial milk in this city is above the stand-
ard of the Board of Health, that it does not come down to 100
on the lactometer. Therefore we may safely assume that
the milk offered for sale in the city of New York—the com-
mercial milk—is above the standard of the Board of Uealth,
above 100. That evidence is uncontradicted, and you cannot go
any further than the evidence. Now the importance of this
adulteration, or of an adulteration which shall be carried, as in
this case, fifteen degrees below, it is hardly necessary to dwell
upon. I read from Beck’s work on Adulterations, he says: * It
is not without reason, therefore, that the great mortality among
children in Paris is ascribed chiefly to the bad quality of the
milk with which such a large number are constantly fed.” I
read from Dr. Voelcker, who is regarded as undisputed authori-
ty in this case: “ Milk may be regarded as a kind of model food.
It supplies all the various elements of nutrition which are
required to build up the bony frame and muscular tissue of
the young, and, at the same time, supplies materials for support-
ing respiration and keeping up the animal heat of the body.
Undiluted with water, milk is both a readily digestible and val-
uable, if not indispensable, article of food for children. Breed-
ers of high priced short-horns know full well how essential it is
to the early development of a sound and strong frame, round
which the flesh and fat may be afterwards deposited in sym-
metrical forms, not to stint the calf in milk; and it is to be
feared that the children of the artisan and the poor in towns,
and of the agricultural laborer in the country, are not nearly so
well supplied with milk—both as regards quantity and quality

as the progeny of the well-cared-for herd of short horns, or
Ayrshire or Devon cows. If it be remembered that the bodily

5

health of the adult is affected in no small degree by the amount
and quality of the food with which the infant, from the time of
its birth and throughout the period of childhood, is fed, and
also that much physical suffering might be prevented if chil-
dren were not stinted in a milk diet, it is doubly desirable that
the scanty allowance of milk in which the children of the poor
are generally indulged should be unadulterated, and of the best
quality that can be procured. We hail, therefore, with pleas-
ure, the enforcement of the food adulteration act, for there can
be no question that before the act came into practical operation,
the milk sold alike to the rich and poor in London and other
large towns, was watered much more generally, and to a greater
extent, than it is at present, in places where public analysists
keep a watch over the milk-men.” It is a matter of public
record of which the court and you will take cognizance that the
Board of Health in this city began its operations in 1867. It
found at that time the death rate in this city, of children under
five years of age, to be fifty-three per cent. of the whole num-
ber of deaths. Now I will not stop to consider the general de-
erease which has been marked, year by year, in the rate of the
mortality in this city, but I will show you this one fact, that in
1875 the death rate of children under five years of age, to
whom of most importance is this question of the purity of milk,
their principal food, the rate of mortality had decreased to 484
per cent. This means, upon the whole mortality, gentlemen,
saving the lives of three thousand children per year. That
decrease in the rate of mortality is owing, more than anyth‘ng
else, to the safe-guards that have been thrown about them in
various ways, and especially their protection in the purity of
their food. Now, statistics of writers go further upon this sub-
ject, and they say that for every death you may rate twenty-
eight cases of serious illness. How vast becomes the calcula-
tion—the consideration of influences which are here before you,
which, if these learned gentlemen are correct, you are to decide
for, or against, for or against a standard, a means of protection
and a safe-guard ; for or against the limit of adulteration with-
out concern, for the profits of this distinguished defendant, or

6

the liberty which he claims, about which his counsel has been so
anxious. The liberty of what? The liberty of pursuing a dis-
honest trade, the liberty of evil doing. I tell you, gentlemen,
that your verdict in this case will establish or condemn the re-
strictions upon that liberty, for whose establishment and regula-
tion our government is constituted ; it is a liberty conformable
to law.

Now the history of the litigation in milk cases is important.
You have had constantly presented to you the first trial of such
a case, when these same learned counsel and these same scientific
gentlemen arrayed for the defence appeared. The prosecution,
as represented in this case, did not have at that time the oppor-
tunity to make the same defence as in subsequent cases. They
did not then show that they had arrived at the test which is pro-
duced for your judgment in this case. They had to wait until
this case was tried, until the instructions of more than a year had
been had, in the learned talk, in the learned lectures of how milk
may be adulterated to escape the lactometer, and in the frequent
defences instituted in prosecutions by the Board of Health, by
these learned gentlemen, until the inspections of milk had been
tried by the experience gained in these contests. These public
officers who now prosecute, come before yon to say we have now
arrived, by our experience, by this very instruction from the
milkmen’s counsel, by the very instruction received from Dr.
Doremus, at a test which will stand scrutiny, and we submit it
to you. Now, gentlemen, what is this test? In the first place
every witness that has been before you, has agreed that a man
may know milk; he will be able to test milk and be an expert in
milk inspection. You know there are experts of great skill in
many trades and in many commodities. In the case of testing
milk, a man who has experience will mark defects in it that will
pass your eyes and mine. You are able to judge whether these
inspectors have experience in judging milk. The witness for the
defence, Dr. Vaughan, could distinguish the quality of milk
because, as he says, he is “accustomed to handling it.” Could
Drs. White and O’Connor not test it? But it will be said by
the defence, we presented a bottle containing a fluid which they

7 .

did not dare to say was milk. You, gentlemen, have now ar-
rived at a point where you, tov, will say it was not milk. There
is this thing for which they searched the whole country around
New York, and could find no place from which it could be de-
rived, except the famous farm of Mulford, distinguished in the
researches of the Doremus family. This article they proposed
as astandard by which shall be regulated the milk trade of New
York, and you will pronounce it, gentlemen, I am convinced, no
milk; that it is not for a standard, and my impression is, that
such a sample of their evidence will characterize their whole
ease. If that is their standard, if that is their evidence of milk
which they say is from a fair, healthy cow, “a fair sample of the
average milk mixed and taken to New York,” [ trust, gentlemen,
you will leave that sample and that trade to the gentlemen for
the defence, give it to “the distinguished defendant,” nourish him
on it in the seclusion to which I hope he will be devoted, and let
us see if he, and his friends and associates, will not wish for a
better milk, as they should wish for a better and more honest
trade. Gentlemen, your verdict will touch such considerations as
these. After the first case was tried, we came to another, where
many experts were examined whose testimony you have heard
here on this trial, but there was no defence except by the cross-
examination of this learned gentleman.

Mr. Lawrence.—I was not present; you are mistaken.

Mr. Prenzice—Your associate, Mr. Waehner, was present ;
I speak of the Joechter case ; there was no appeal in that case.
Then we came to the Cox case. In that case there was an
appeal, and Cox illustrated by his labors in the penitentiary the
dangers and difficnIties attending a dishonest trade in the City
of New York. Now we have finally come to this case, and they
propose, after a year or two of litigation, that this shall be the test
case. The issue here, as I stated before, is whether the defendant
had for sale watered milk. I shall not spend time in discussing
whether there was an error of one, two, or three degrees on any
of the lactometers, or in any of the tests. This man watered his
milk fifteen degrees. Take the lowest standard offered by the
gentlemen of the defense of inilk. I do not call the sample

8

from the “dlack cow,’ I do not call the sainple with which it
was associated, from the “ b0b-tailed cow,” samples of milk. My.
Charles Doremus told you here that these two samples were
similar and alike in their constituents. I call these no samples,
except for them; but, even if you propose to admit them, put
them in with all the milk, as they wish them put into the milk
supply of New York. Remember this “rule of three” which
belongs to their model herd. It takes eight cows of theirs to
make twelve pints of milk. Now, put their milk into a can
of mixed milk of forty quarts, the can of the commercial
milk that comes to this city, take these two samples in such
a can of milk, determine then its average, and see whether
there is a possibility that this defendant, taking all averages
and including all errors, had any milk except watered milk.
Now one word as to this distinguished gentleman, the prisoner
at the bar. He has come before you chivalrously, and glorified
by the distinction of representing and defending what some
would appear to call a good act, the watering of milk. He has
said to you that his milk had been inspected before. He knew
the test when the inspector came to his shop, and he read the
lactometer; he even discussed with the inspector whether the
proper degree on the lactometer was 85 or 90. He said it was
90, so that he knew the test. Now he comes to the stand and
says, “I did not do it; my son did not do it;” but, mark it,
gentlemen, the defendant does not say he did not know that
milk was watered, for he did know that it was watered ; there is
not a milkman in this city who would not have known that that
milk was watered. I do not believe a discussion from books, a
discussion of opinions, or any discussion on the lactometer, or
the hydrometer, or the other ometers with tediously long names
of which we have heard, will withdraw from your observation
the fact that this man, by all the evidence in this case, is shown
to have had for sale watered milk, and to have known it. But
I do not care whether he knew it or not; the question is, did he
violate the law? He has been in this business seventeen years.
I am not discussing his moral innocence ; there is no question
of that kind in this case. There is no pretense in this case that

9

the milk he was offering for sale was “ adulterated” with creain.
Their witness, Dr. Vaughan, said that, to show a different rate
on the lactometer by the addition of cream, we would have to
put in an immense amount, and then it would show “ viscosity.”
There is no question of viscosity in this case ; it is a question—
whether the milk was watered or not. It has been shown that
the milk found in the defendant’s place looked blue, it ran off
the glass, and the inspector tasted it; so that, without even
testing it with the lactometer, he could have said that it was
watered milk. It was, as the learned professor who has distin-
guished himself for the defense, upon whom they place their
whole reliance, has said, and you will remember the graphic
style with which his evidence was gtven—it was “ rich in water.”
This is a sample as he said which the Court will observe was
“rich in water.” It occurred to me this morning, as I was
taking my milk, that I had read of another sample of milk that
was “rich in water.” Without detaining you any length of time,
I will refer to the incident told by Charles Dickens in present-
ing to the people of England the enormities of the so-called farm-
ing-schools and boarding-schools, where step-sons and orphans
were put away in the country at Dotheboy’s Hall, ruled over by
Mr. Squeers, who exercised there a most vicious tyranny. Mr.
Dickens, by this graphic story of Nicholas Nickleby, which
burned its moral into the heart of the English people, produced
a great reform—such a reform as I trust, in some measure, will
follow your verdict in this case. In the story, Mr. Squeers
goes to London to get pupils. Mr. Nickleby meets them at an
inn. Mr. Squeers calls for breakfast for the boys, while he is
having meat and coffee.

“This is two penny’orth of milk is it, waiter?” said Mr.
Squeers, looking in the large blue mug, and slanting it gently,
so as to get an accurate view of the quantity of liquid contained
in it.

“ This is two penny’orth, sir,” replied the waiter.

“ What a rare article milk is to be sure, in London,” said Mr.
Squeers with a sigh. “Just fill that mug up with luke-warm
water, William, will you ?”

10

“To the werry top, sir?” inquired the waiter. “Why the
milk will be drounded.”

“Never you mind that,” replied Mr. Squeers. “Serve it right
for being so dear. You ordered that thick bread and butter for
three, did you?”

“Ooming directly, Sir.”

“ You needn’t hurry yourself,” said Squeers; “ there’s plenty
of time. Conquer your passions, boys, and don’t be eager after
vittles.” As he uttered this moral precept, Mr. Squeers took a
large bite out of the cold beef, and recognized Nicholas. “ Sit
down, Mr. Nickleby,” said Squeers, “we are a breakfasting you
see.” Nicholas did not see that any body was breakfasting ex-
cept Mr. Squeers; but he bowed with all becoming reverence
and looked as cheerful as he could.

“Oh! that is the milk and water, is it William?” said
Squeers, “very good, don’t forget the bread and butter pre-
sently.”

At this fresh mention of the bread and butter the five little
boys looked very eager, and followed the waiter out with their
eyes ; meanwhile, Mr. Squeers tasted the milk and water.

“ Ah!” said that gentleman, smacking his lips, “ here’s rich-
ness! Think of the many beggars and orphans in the streets
that would be glad of this, little boys. A shocking thing hun-
ger is, isn’t it, Mr. Nickleby.”

“ Very shocking, Sir,” said Nicholas.

Here is richness, yes! let us think of the widows and orphans
in the street who have to suffer by this “ richness,” by such a stan-
dard as is proposed by these learned gentlemen. Now observe
how this controversy has been shaped, with what art the parti-
cular issue has been concealed. The first point in the trial of
such cases, the first point in the movement of public officers to
prevent an evil so enormous as this, must depend on some prac-
tical mode of detection of fraud. So cumbrous and lengthy a
method of detection, involving the necessity of this parade of a
whole laboratory, as you saw here, in which, after forty minutes
of experiment in the evaporation of milk, the experiment was
not concluded, and several parts you had to take upon your im-

11

agination. Such a method is insufficient. Make it cumbrons,
throw difficulties in the way, and you cannot detect one milk-
man’s fraud a day. Perhaps the Milkmen’s Association would
be willing to offer up the vicarious sacrifice of a “ distinguished
member” like the prisoner, and the other members would then
pursue their trade undetected and unharmed. Therefore, I say
the first object of the defence was to get rid of any practical
mode of detection. There is in fact but one method of adulter-
ation of milk of which we are really afraid. It is the “ ¢ron-tailed
cow” that does the damage ; it is by water. This is the cheapest
and most ordinary way. You are not to consider if there are
other adulterations; you have not to say that the Board of
Health would necessarily fail in the detection and punishment
of other offenses. We have here the most common and the
readiest adulteration—that by water. You know that the
milkmen themselves are interested in this test, and chat they are
making it constantly. Doughty has told you, that even on the
farms, they are testing the milk, and every man who purchases
milk knows whether he is buying a good article or not. Officers
Jepson and Gardner were police officers of the Sanitary Squad,
and made 10,000 tests each. Drs. O’Connor and White have
testified, and you have seen a witness on the stand for the de-
fence who claims that he is no scientific man, and has no scien-
tific experience, but who says that these observations are easily
and readily made. It is not necessary to talk to you at length
of the detection of so plain and palpable a fraud as there is in
this case. Gentlemen, you know that every one of you can take
that lactometer and test milk yourselves. Take milk which
they say is “adulterated with cream,’ and milk which is
diluted with water, and your own good sense and observation
will determine that it is possible to distinguish between them.
The first thing, then, that the defense strikes at is the instru-
ment used in this practical test. We were told that the lactom-
eter should be brushed away, “that knowledge and science,”
excuse me for quoting the words, “damn the lactometer.” We
have a learned professor, on the part of the defence, who meets
this instrument as some noble leader of a bovine herd who,

12

breaking from his accustomed pastures, crosses a railroad track
in the gloom of the evening, and seeing the locomotive coming
with its dazzling light plunges at it to brush the locomotive
away; but it is the bull and not the locomotive that disappears.

Now [ask you to remember this fact, that not one witness in
this case has said that the lactometer will not test specific gravity.
They all agree to that. “But it is useless,’ says the learned
professor. I say let us determine the specific gravity in the first
place. The public officers in this case do not propose to you the
lactometer as a test for anything else but specific gravity, but
they say that since you know what the specific gravity of good,
sound, commercial milk is, and must be, if the milk tested shall
fall below that standard on the lactometer, then it is watered.
Now, gentlemen, whether that be a correct conclusion or not,
you have heard the evidence of all these learned gentlemen who
have testified to the value of this test. I shall not take up your
time to attempt to meet the quibbles about mistakes of words
when they were under the very sharp fire of the cross-examina-
tion of the learned counsel. I shall not ask you to determine
whether these scientific men, witnesses for the prosecution, are
worthy of the place they have occupied in the scientific world
for fifteen or twenty or more years; but I will remind you of
the fact that as one distinguished author has said, “ books follow
thoughts, not thoughts books.” You have had the book-makers
before you; you have had the men before you who determine
scientific questions. You have had their opinion, to the effect
that after a consideration of all the authorities, and after a re-
view of the whole subject with careful analysis and reason, such
as scientific men have learned to use, their opinion, vouched for
by their reputation, is that the lactometer is a sure and practi-
cal test of the adulteration of milk by water, when it is properly
tested and is accurate. Now they have said further that as a
practical test it.is just as accurate as analysis. It is not necessary
for us to go to that point; I desire to make it plain. It must
be admitted on all sides that analysis can only tell you the
amount of water in the milk; the lactometer tells you the same
thing. ILow can you tell from analysis whether water has been

13

added unless you have some standard? You must settle in the
first place how much water ought to be in milk, or analysis will
not tell you what has been added. WUere is where the defence
have made their real and their principal issue. Their attack is
not on the lactometer; they can no more meet it than the bull
can meet the locomotive; they can no more meet it than you
can meet any well ascertained fact. The lactometer has been
described to you by the learned witness for the defence, in his
graphic style, as beginning with Archimedes. It is not neces-
sary to prove that; it has been admitted in court that it deter-
mines specific gravity, and analysis will do no more. It is upon
this question of a standard that we have to meet them. This is
the real thing at which they aim. You cannot tell, they say,
but that this was honest milk, becanse there is no standard.
Then we asked the defence, what is your standard? They answer
it ranges from 80 to 130. We asked, can you fix it no closer?
“No.” How do you know that? “ By experience.” Their pro-
fessor made personally twelve observations, and of these seven
were against him, and five for him, and the most distinguished
of these observations was on the now famous quadruped, which
seems to be the peculiar property of the scientific family on the
side of the defense. I think I would be justified in calling that
tribe of milk cows the “Doremus Cows,” and the most distin-
guished of that family is the mother, perhaps, the so-called
“ Bob-tailed Cow.” We have found her sister nearly related to
her in this case. Her milk is produced by the youthful knight
errant of the professor’s family, who searches “the County of
Orange, with its creameries and its rich pastures,’—to quote his
own language—and goes straight to the Mulford Farm. You
will remember the learned professor’s description of the golden
crown of Hiero, which Archimedes tested, exclaiming, “ Eu-
veka!” “Eureka!” So you will remember how this: youthful
scion of that scientific house returned from “the creameries
of Orange” with “the sample of low gravity milk,” that he
had been sent for, and may imagine him exclaiming, “ Eureka!
I have found it, the low gravity milk, the black cow.” And
the anxious father says, “Have you heard anything of the

14

pob-tailed cow?” The youth replies, “It is not necessary,
I have the black cow. sample number three. Get the other side
to taste it, and the case is done.” I thought we would trace this
cow-relationship a little. I thought we would go one step more.
So I asked Mr. Charles Doremus, another member of the
family, more about this tribe of cows, which has been hitherto un-
known in science. There is no description of any such cows any-
where, except in the evidence of the professor’s family. I could
read you books without number, but I will take the testimony
which you have heard. No such cows were ever known before,
therefore I wished to trace them. I said to Charles Doremus,
“ This sample of milk is very like another we have had?” He
was talking about the samples he had in the Kneib case, and
about the “ bob-tailed cow.” ‘“ There is another milk, that of the
black cow, like this,” I said. “Yes, it is,’ he said, “in whey.”
“Ts it like it, in other respects?” “Yes, sir, in other respects.”
There are no such cows to be found except in this “ Doremus
tribe.” The black cow and the bob-tailed cow stand together,
and when Prof. Doremus goes on to give you a standard of milk,
he begins with these. It is from these that he gets his low stand-
ard. J will read an extract from Wanklyn, and we shall see if
there is not a standard for milk. Wanklyn, page 41, says: “In
dealing with milk supply ona large scale, we are little concerned
with the possibility of single animals giving abnormal milk, and
need only concern ourselves with milk of normal quality, all de-
partures from the standard being looked upon as sophistications.”
The fact is claimed by him that the normal standard of milk
varies, if I remember right, only two degrees. Now I take upa
book, “ Du Lait,’ by Marchand, and read this: “ Every time
that we shall meet a milk of which the corrected density shall
be inferior to 1.030 at a temperature of 15 [Centigrade], and
which shall contain less than 30 gr. of butter, 50 gr. of lactine,
we shall affirm with certainty and without fear, that the milk is
falsified.’ I read from the last edition of Tardieu, the edition
of 1862: “In one word, the frauds indicated by the lactoden-
simeter are certain, but it is far from indicating all frauds.” On
page 521, I read that “ the lactodensimeter is a useful instrument

15

for the verification of milk. It can show some frauds, but not
all.” Tread from this dictionary of Profs. Tardieu and Blythe,
in which they say in the article on milk, page 385: “Mr. F. N.
McNamara, of Calcutta, published a short time since the
interesting analysis of the milk of a little Bengali cow.
His results show how constant the composition of milk is,
whether obtained from the much prized and well-fed Alderney,
or the poor, ill-nourished Bengali cow.” This book I have
in my hand, is one that gives a most exhaustive treatment
of this whole subject. There are no pet theories in it, such
as are to be found in Von Baumhauer, but it reviews the
whole subject. Christian Miiller’s treatise, on page 42, of the
edition of 1872, says: “Irom more than 6,000 samples from
@uevenne and Bouchardat, 1.029 appears as the minimum
and 1.033 as the maximum. For the hospitals and public insti-
tutions in Paris, the minimum is 1.030. From 1842 to 1856
there was an earnest inquiry if these figures could be taken for
Switzerland. A great many instruments were distributed to
obtain the greatest possible number of data both on the mount-
ains and in the valleys, and there was a great demand for thein ;
so that in 1856 already several hundreds of instrnments were in
use. The fear of the new instruments closed the mouths of the
guilty, and it soon became the rule to close the prosecution by
1.028. So it was in my laboratory.” On page 51, he says, “ the
proving of the specific gravity of milk by means of the arao-
meter answers the purpose, and for the greatest proportion of
cases is suflicient, and in several localities there is no other test.”
On page 69 he says, “ besides, I investigated 286 other cases of
market milk. As the average of all tests, I had a number
which was not much greater than 1.031. I found one gravity
only under 1.029. This was from a spayed cow; the milk had
a bitter taste.” On page 74 he says: “If we go through all
Exrope, from land to land, from place to place, from dairy to
dairy, from alp to alp, with the lactodensimeter in our hand,
and mix constantly the milk of various cows together, we shall
find that the milk, which is divided as a trade commodity from
the physiological milk, ranges from 1.029 to 1.033.”

16

This answers in one word this question of milk, this commer:
cial milk, and these psendo criticisms against our lactometer.
The real issue in this case is, Shall the standard be that of the
milk of a healthy cow? Shall it be a standard of the milk of
the cow as she has been found all over the civilized world ?
Shall it be the standard of the food supply of milk by which
nourishment shall be secured to the infant and the sick in the
great cities of the civilized world, or shall it be the standard of
this model Mulford or Doremus family of cows? Shall it be
the standard of the Doremus cows? I say give us a standard
such as is accepted elsewhere, and let the citizens of New York
have the protection which is accorded to those who live under
every well-regulated government in all the world. But it has
been said you have no right to use the lactometer. I say on the
contrary that the real issue is the standard for sound milk. On
this point I will read one or two extracts from well-known
books, and then I will pass by this subject. In a work on food,
by Edward Smith, published in 1873, after reviewing all the
questions with all the experience gained in England, speaking
of the addition of water and the subtraction of part of the
cream, etc., etc., the author goes on to say of the tests, “the
lactometer effects this with readiness and efficiency.” Wilson
says: “As it (milk) is frequently adulterated with water, the
specific gravity is a most important test of the quality, and
hence the value of the lactometer.” It is said, in the work by
Atcherly that “the addition of water is best detected by its (the
milk’s) specitic gravity.” “ This ina sample of milk was lowered
when mixed with its own volume of water, from 1.031 to 1.015.”
Here I have the correspondence of the Holland Association, the
most recent publication of all, published in Cologne, in 1876,
in which the adulteration of milk is treated of under the
title or head of “ Public Health,” and this approves the use of
the lactometer in determining the specific gravity. So I might
go through a number of these works I have here before me. In
the Annals of agricultural chemistry which have been used in
evidence, Fleischman has said that “the areometer, under all
circumstances, is of the highest excellence (ganz vortrefflich) in

17

BI

proving the watering of milk.’ The areometer is the lactometer.
Gentlemen, I shall not enter upon the discussion of the
mechanical operation or construction of this little instru-
ment. You have had the testimony here of very distinguished
scientific men, that it was very well made; and it seems to me
that one of the most notable failures on the part of the defence
was when two of their scientific experts were unable to tell how
it should be regulated, and showed upon the stand that they
were ignorant of the quotation from the article in Watts’ dic-
tionary, in which it appears that in the construction of the
lactometer on so very nice a scale the degrees will appear equal.
You have heard the testimony of a man who does know how they
are constructed, and he has shown to you that the difference in
the size of the degrees is the ¢g455 Or sooo part of an inch. The
witnesses for the defence did not know these facts and figures
when they testified. They did not know how, in fact, the lacto-
meter was constructed. They did not know what was the test
that was prescribed by the very book which they had in their
hand. You remember the story of the young lady who enter.
tained company, and was found after a number of evenings to be
extremely well posted on a great many subjects; but after a
while her conversation lagged, and when an explanation was
sought as to the cause of her dullness, she said the fact was that
she had been reading the encyclopeedia, but had only reached the
letter O. These gentlemen got up to the page they quoted about
the hydrometer, but they had only read up to a certain point, and
not the later pages which we showed to them. It was as con-
spicuous an example of scientific inaccuracy as was afforded
when the learned professor informed you that there was no con-
stant quantity in milk, save the one element, which was sugar.
“Examine the serum,” said he, “ because sugar is always con-
stant.” I said to him: “ Professor, tell me if on your chart
there over your head the sugar is always constant.” The reply
was: “It varies a little.’ “ How much?” “ Well, it varies
3.” Said I, what is the highest and what is the lowest point?”
“It varies from 6 at one limit to 2,8, at the other ”—above 60
per cent., if I can read correctly. That is all he knows of the

18

standard for milk and of its accuracy in the experiment. Gen-
tlemen, is such testimony to be opposed to the opinions which
you have heard here, such authorities as have been read in your
hearing? But I do not ask you to trust to that proof, I do not
ask you to consult these books, nor to read one of them. I ask
you simply to trust your own observation and your own judg-
ment. You have seen with your own eyes whether or not this
instrument will detect the watering of milk. Now, remember
that, in opposition to the experiment on the Mulford herd of the
bob-tailed and black cow species, that we have made experiments
in searching for low gravity cows—not with a particular object,
but to find out what the range was here about New York. Our
inspectors tested not only commercial milk, but they made 505
tests of cows at the dairy farms, and found that in all cases of
sound, healthy cows the milk was above the standard. There
were some apparent exceptions. Did we conceal them? No;
we told you the whole story ; we gave you all the reports. The
defence used one or two reports only in evidence on this point.
We have given you all the facts in our possession, and you can
judge as well as we. The exceptions we have explained, and
we say that the tests made here, the practical tests to determine
the standard of New York commercial milk, demonstrate with
mathematical certainty that 1.029 is a very low standard—that it
is a very fair standard for the purity of milk.

Suppose you agree with these learned gentlemen of the de-
fenee, in any respect, you must still remember that the ques-
tion is not of one, two, three, five, nor of ten degrees in this
case, but it is of fifteen degrees of water. Think of it?
Twenty-five per cent. of water had to be added to the
sample you had before you the other day to bring it down
to 90, five degrees above this point of Schrumpf’s. | The
testimony we have had in this case has increased the number
of practical tests, for it see ns that out of forty-seven samples that
were investigated by the Messrs. Doremus there was a very small
proportion that fell below the standard. Accepting the real milk
cows of the Mulford and;other herds our tests come up to 540, se
that our standard is not lowered but if anything it is increased.

19

Gentlemen, will you say to the milkmen of New York what
standard of milk you will have your children take, and what you
will give to the poor, and send to the hospitals. You can fix by
your verdict the standard. It is of vast importance that noth-
ing should be done to unsettle the standard of pure milk. It is
of vast importance that you do not put us all at the mercy of
people who are supplying so important an element of health
and strength in this community. Now remember commercial
milk is mixed milk, it must have an average, and remember, as
I said before, that the evidence is uncontradicted in this case
that commercial milk, sold in the city of New York, when pure,
stands above 100 on the lactometer. Mr. Doughty says he
tested 3,000 samples of this commercial milk we are talking
about, and out of those 3,000 of Doughty’s tests, out of the 540
tests of the Board of Health, out of the 6,000 in Paris, out of the
hundreds of those which Miller tells you of in Switzerland, and
those which Smith speaks of, you get an enormous aggregate,
and opposed to them you have Doremus’s five or seven strippers
and the twelve observations which Professor Doremus himself
made, of which seven were in favor of and five against the
lactometér. Do you talk about a doubt in this case upon such
evidence? Is it possible to go beyond that? Now I have
shown you what the opposing standard is, based upon those
samples of milk that you have here before you. I have shown
you what the sample test, applied to Schrumpf’s milk, was based
upon. I have shown you the accepted standard all over the
world, and it has been proved by practical tests, and, I think,
also by your own observation during this trial. When, I ask
you, gentlemen, when you have been brought in to settle and
decide this case and make so important a decision, and when
the defence have come in to put their best evidence before you,
asking that they shall have an unlicensed liberty of trade, such
as is claimed by these distinguished counsel ; when you sit here
upon your oaths to decide according to the evidence, to do what
is fair, honest, true, and right, if the evidence proposed, upon
which the defence intends to rely, is a fraud, if it is unfair, if it
is a deception in the face of the Court, IL ask you, gentlemen, will

20

you not decide the whole case upon the evidence, and charac-
terize the evidence produced by the other side in support of a
standard and a test fraudulent in its beginning, fraudulent in
its production, and fraudulent in itself, as one upon which they
cannot stand, upon which your righteous judgment will not
permit them to stand, as one which they shall take away with
themselves and go out of Court to the judgment, and to the fair
condemnation of every honest man, of every citizen who desires ~
to protect the innocent, the defenceless, and the poor children of
this city? Gentlemen, will you approve the fraud of such testi-
mony as that of the defence, or will yon condemn it? Am I
using too strong language when I speak in harsh terms of this
sample of milk which you have had analyzed, and which the
learned counsel for the prisoner proposed to-day to withdraw ?
He says, “ Withdraw the samples that voung Doremus brought
from the Mulford farm!” It is too late to withdraw these. It
was on Friday only that we found out where they came from.
We had questioned the source; we had admired the research
of this professor’s family, and on Friday we found out where
they had been on the preceding Monday. We had the sample
back in Court on this last Wednesday. and demonstrated to you
that it was unsound milk, that if was rotten, that it was not milk
at all. They cannot withdraw it, it is the best thing for justice
which they could have done. They have prepared for months
to try this case. The learned counsel for the prisoner is ex-
hausted with the research he has made, and he has been compli-
mented by the Court on the success which you have witnessed :
“ His ingenuity and learning in complicating questions.” They
have done their best, and it is the same thing we have had
before. If that isa fair average sample, if that is the best evi-
dence they can produce, if it is presented to you as a fair, aver-
age sample of milk, and you know it is not milk at all, that it is
rotten, disgusting stuff, then I say such is their case. You must
remember that this same Mulford herd of cows were fed on oat
straw, and yet every milker in the Mulford herd—mind you,
‘the Doremus cows” are not “mialkers,” but “strippers” —every
milker in the Mulford herd gave milk above the standard. Yes,

21

one, though fed on oat straw, did get a little hay. Fortunately,
young Doremus visited the place, and he saw her eat hay. You
were told by other witnesses how he took hay and gave it to her,
and then came into court and swore she fed on hay. Is that fair,
is that honest? I need not go back to discuss all this evidence.
I think I need not discuss much longer the facts. I say that
there are no facts upon which you can find a verdict for the de-
fendant, as I believe. It may be, and I am bound to admit,
looking at it from one side of the question, that there may be
some things which have escaped my observation, but this thing
has not escaped my observation. Where there is a fabrication
or falsification of evidence, it is one of the earliest principles in-
stilled into the mind of every professional man, of every man who
follows that profession in which I. glory, which I believe is of
the highest honor, and governed by a rule of honor permitting
no deception either by inference or by suggestion, it is one of the
earliest principles, I repeat, instilled into the mind of the law
student on the subject of evidence, that any falsification of evi-
dence, or any fabrication of it, stamps the whole case. Now, if
you should excuse the defendant, if you should find he was not
guilty—but I do not see how that is possible—yet if you should
so find, you would establish a standard for the city of New York
from this fraud, and a standard of milk from this Doremus herd
of cows. It comes to just that. The famous “number 3 cow,”
spoken of by the defence in this case, is the standard of milk for
New York which they seek by your verdict, Now the lactome-
ter we have offered you as a test for nothing except the specific
gravity, and we have said that commercial milk must stand at
100 on the lactometer. I think it has been proved to you that
no possible variation of fifteen degrees could occur even on their
hypothesis. You will remember that it was probably 25 per
cent. of water which was put into the defendant’s milk. It is
not the lactometer alone that determines the adulteration, but
with it the observation of the expert. He knew that the milk
was watered before he tried the lactemeter, You have been
shown three tests, and they all agreed. Yes, you have had one
further test, viz., that of the evidence that the defendant knew

L. ec.

22

it was watered milk. The distinguished defendant who has ap-
peared here as the champion for all the milk dealers—because
this is their preferred case, I did not select it—he knew, he read
the scale on the lactometer, and he did not attempt to deny it.
His skillful counsel drew from him all that was proper for the
case. There was to be no mistake; there was no confusion, no
lack of skill or ingenuity in getting all from this gentleman that
could be got. Therefore his counsel was careful, and asked -
questions carefully modified. “ Did you put any water in your
milk?” “No.” “Did your son?” “No.” Not a question
put such as did you know whether it was watered or not ? There
has been a singular transformation in this man. I do not know
what it is owing to. I presume the man who, on the 25th of
August, sold this milk must necessarily be a different man from
the distinguished individual that comes here and swears as to the
standard of milk and the use of the lactometer. He came here
the other day, and plead at the bar, before this case began, and
said “not guilty.” He said that he was not guilty of knowingly
offering for sale adulterated or watered milk. But he changed
his tune; he woke up within two or three days, and as he looked
in the glass he beheld Schrumpf, no longer a milk dealer, but
“the champion representative of the Milk Dealers’ Association.”
“Schrumpf!” he said to himself, “ you said you did not know,
you who know everything, and to whom these scientific men are
but infants; but when you come on the stand can you say you
did not know the reading of the lactometer? Have you not seen
it before? You know all about it.” He talked English then and
with the Inspector, but on the stand he could only speak Ger-
man. When the standard of milk of the black cow and the
bob-tailed cow is mentioned and proven, see the effect on him.
He is changed. Then he knew both English and German; now
he knows only German. A week ago he did not know that his
was watered milk; but now he finds that he knew it all the
time. From such effects save us. ,
Now we leave this man to suffer the just consequences of an
offence prohibited by law. I think you will say it is a salutary
law, as the learned counsel for the defence has already admitted

25

that it is. This is an offence which touches the important rela-
tions of life, to which I have called your attention—one that
bears immediately upon this question of the reduction of the rate
of mortality among infants. And I may say if this be a test
case, it is one that is to increase or diminish the rate of mortality
of the one hundred and thirty thousand infants in this great city.
Leaving that, I say that upon the evidence which you will have
to discuss, these several propositions have been demonstrated :
ist. That there is a standard for New York milk. Place it where
you like, gentlemen. If you do not accept this 1.029, still my
proposition is that there is a standard, though the defence denies
it. 2d. That 1.029 or its equivalent 100 on the lactometer of the
Board of Health, is practical, and it is the only safe standard for
the city of New York, otherwise you incur great dangers and
great risks. 3d. That the lactometer correctly determines the
specific gravity, and in determining the specific gravity upon
this standard, determines the question of adulteration by water.
4th. That the milk dealers must be presumed and held to know
the article they are selling, just as the baker knows his bread,
and the butcher knows his meat. So the milkmen onght to
know the article. they are selling, at so great a profit, to the
people. 5th. That Schrumpf’s milk on this day in August was
watered, and watered far below the safe standard, and far below
any possibility of error in his detection. 6th. That the defen-
dant’s milk was watered at least 15 per cent., and thus adulter-
ated, offered by him for sale, against the law and ordinance.
7th. That Schrumpf is guilty, and whether we find him guilty
knowingly or not, he is guilty of selling adulterated milk.

Now one word, gentlemen, and I will detain you no longer.
I ask you to consider the parties to this litigation. On the one
side you have public officers charged as I said before upon their
oaths to discharge this duty of protecting the health of the city
of New York. Upon so important a question, they have given
evidence after careful preparation, testimony of distinguished
scientific men, and evidence of the methods of detection adopted
all over the world where such necessity arises for such tests and
such action. They have concealed nothing. You have had the

24

whole before you; you have seen the very beginning and the
whole course and history of this test, and you have had added to
it such practical demonstrations as the prosecution have shown.
These are public interests which are involved, and it is be-
cause they are public officers that they have thought it necessary
to show you who represent the community—for you are the people
in this case—fully, frankly, thoroughly, and accurately, all that
they have been doing, and what their officer did the day that .
Schrumpf was found offering watered milk for sale. Now the
defendant appears here on behalf of private interests. As I told
you before, he claims but one thing, and that is to be atlowed to
go on and sell this milk, to get rid of the standard, to get rid of
detection, to get rid of all methods of procedure, to have a lib-
erty unrestricted by law, to pour this poison over the whole city.
I have shown you the influence of your verdict. I have directed
your attention to the principal points that have been discussed.
I have not sought to go into details. I ask you to take the other
facts upon the authority of the witnesses whom you have heard
examined, I will say in conclusion that we have come into this
case to discharge a duty; we have entered into this litigation,
and have made this fight because it was necessary. We have not
sought it. We have, as I believe, fought a good fight, we have
kept the faith. I trust that you will find that we have done
our duty, The rest we leave to you.

PVE HIN DeexX":

I.--WITNESSES.

1.— Witnesses Kxamined for the Prosecution, in Favor of the
Board of Health Tests.

Wiiiiam A. Watt, from the Office of the City Record.

Caspar GoLpERMAN, from the Office of the Health Department.

Dr. Joun B. Wurre, Sanitary Inspector.

Pror. C. F. Cuanpier, Columbia College.

Pror. C. A. Gorssmann, Mass. Agricultural College.

Pror. G. C. Carpwett, Cornell University.

H. Dovenry, Manager of the Essex County Farmers’ Milk
Association.

Pror. Henry Morron, Stevens’ Institute.

Pror. Bensamin Sitiiman, Yale College.

Eiwywn Warrier, Pu.D., Chemist to the Health Department.

Herrman Enperman, Pu.D., Health Department.

Joun R. Yate, Health Department.

Dr. J. T. O'Connor, Sanitary Inspector.

Henry A. Morr, Pa.D., New York.

JosepH A. Garpner, Sanitary Policeman and Milk Inspector.

James C. Jepson, Sanitary Policeman and Milk Inspector.

Pror. G. F. Barker, University of Pennsylvania.

2.— Witnesses Hxamined for the Defence, Oppased to the Bourd
of Health Tests.
Tuomas ©. Dorremus, New York.
Pror. R. O, Doremus, College of the City of New York.
pe ©. A. Doremus, New York.
H.W. Vaveun, Milk Inspector, Providence, R. I.
A. S, Oiseen-——__
Joun H. Comer, Accountant and Practical Farmer,
Danii Scurumpr, Defendant, Milk Dealer.
Jacop Scurumer, Son of Defendant.

26

IJ.—THE LACTOMETER.

1. The lactometer is a hydrometer which indicates specific
gravities between 1.000, the gravity of water, and 1.0348.

The Lactometer.

2. It is used to determine the specific
gravity of the milk.

3. As the specific gravity varies with the —
temperature, the observations are made at
a standard temperature of 60° Fah.

4, The specific gravity of the average
milk at a milking of a healthy cow, prop-

- erly fed and in a normal condition, varies

from 1.029 to 1.0348, The former num-
ber being the lowest or minimum gravity,
100° is placed at this point on the lactome-
ter; 0° is placed at 1.000, the gravity of
water; the intervening space is divided
into 100°, and the graduations are con-
tinued to 120°, which corresponds to the
specific gravity 1.0348.

5. To apply the lactometer, the temper-
ature of the milk is first noted with the
aid of the thermometer; the lactometer
is then carefully inserted, taking pains to
avoid wetting the portion of the stem
above the milk, and to free the surface
of the milk from foam. The degree
to which the instrument sinks is then
noted. Bearing in mind the effect of
temperature on the gravity, the inspec-
tor now decides whether the gravity will
probably be below 100° at 60° Fah. If he
thinks it will, he carefully cools or warms

a sample of the milk, as the case may require, to 60° Fah., and
again inserts the lactometer. If it stands below 100°, the gravity
is below that of any genuine milk. He carefully notices the

27

consistence to determine whether he has before him a sample of
thin watered milk or a sample of thick cream. The black back-
ground of the shot in the lower bulb enables the inspector, as
the milk runs off the lactometer, to judge of its consistence.
The color is also noted, as well as the odor and taste. Low
specific gravity (below 100° = 1.029) together with abnormal
watery consistence, and a watery taste, establish the fact of
adulteration by water, which is the most common form of adul-
teration, because the simplest and most convenient.

If the specific gravity be above 100°, it does not follow that the
milk is pure and unadulterated. Skimming, by removing the
lighter cream, increases the gravity of the milk; so skimmed
milk is heavy ; but it appears at the same time very thin, and the
inspector’s attention will be at once arrested by the inconsistency
of high gravity and a watery character. In this, as in other
cases where the inspector suspects adulteration of any kind
which cannot be proved by the above-mentioned tests of gravity,
consistence, and taste, he is instructed to take a sample for
further examination by the cream test, chemical analysis, and
the microscope.

28

Value of Lactometer Degrees in Specific Gravity.

Lactometer, Gravity. Lactometer. Gravity.
0 1.00000
1 1.00029 61 1.01769
2 1.00058 62 1.01798
3 1.00087 63 1.01827
4 1.00116 64 1.01856
5 1.00145 65 1.01885
6 1.00174 66 1.01914
ry 1.00203 67 1.01943
8 1.00232 68 1.01972
9 1.00261 69 1.02001
10 1.00290 70 1.02030
11 1.00319 71 1.02059
12 1.00348 72 1.02088
13 1.00377 "3 1.02117
14 1.00406 74 1.02146
15 1.00435 ia) 1 02175
16 1.00464 76 } 02204
17 1.00493 77 1.02233
18 1.00522 78 1.02262
19 1.00551 79 1.02291
20 1.00580 80 1.02320
21 1.00609 81 1.02349
22 1.00638 82 1.02378
20 1.00667 83 1.02407
24 1.00696 84. 1.02436
25 1.00725 85 1.02465
26 1.00754 86 1.02494
27 1.00783 87 1.02523
28 1.00812 88 1.02552
29 1.00841 89 1.02581
30 1.00870 90 1.02610
bl 1.00899 91 1.02639
32 1.00928 92 1.02668
33 1.00957 93 1.02697
34 1.00986 94 1.02726
35 1.01015 95 1.02755
36 1.01044 96 1.02784
37 1.01073 97 1.02813
38 1.01102 98 1.02842
39 1.0113 99 1.02871
40 1.01160 100 1.02900
4h 1.01189 101 1.02929
42 1 01218 102 1,02958
43 1.01247 103 1.02987
44 1.01276 104 1.03016
45 1.01305 105 1.03045
46 - 1.01334 106 1, 03074
47 1, 01363 107 1.03103
48 1.01392 108 1.03182
49 1.01421 109 1.03161
50 1.01450 110 1.03190
51 1.0:479 iil 1,03219
52 1.01508 112 1.03248
53 1.01537 113 1.03277
54 1.01566 114 1.03306
55 1.01595 115 1.03335
56 1.01624 116 1.03364
57 1.01653 117 1.03393
58 1.01682 118 1.03422
59 1.01711 119 1.03451
60 1.01740 120 1.03480

29

III. REPORT OF DOCTORS WALLER AND O'CONNOR ON THE COWS
OF THE MULFORD FARM.

Norr.—Samples of low gravity milk from this farm were in-
troduced by the defence to prove that genuine, unadulterated
milk, from healthy, well-fed cows sometimes shows a specific
gravity below 1.029 (100° on the lactometer), the standard used
by the Board of Health, and others, as the minimum gravity of
pure milk.

W. De F. Day, M.D., Sanitary Superintendent.

Sir :—We have the honor to report that, at the request of the
President of the Board of Health, we visited the farm of Mr
Charles Mulford, in the neighborhood of Guymard, Orange Co.,
N.Y., about 80 miles from New York. We reached there on the
afternoon of Saturday, December 23d, 1876, and were present
at the evening’s milking.

His herd consists of some 22 cows, of which but four were at
that time regular milkers; eight were “strippers,” or cows that
were nearly dried up, and the rest were dry. Only the regula-
milkers were milked that evening.

Evening mitking—* milrers ;” milked twice a day.

Cow, Age. Time since Amount Test by Temperature
. last calf. | yielded. Lactometer. Fahr.
~LiCO\ e Cid (es\¢ a 12 years. | 8 weeks. | 34 qts. 105 59°
A elhne BA A ene ae aN re Ba a Ay. 104 61°
“Rede Heifer”, ..... Dy pee iat c a cee 100 61°
SR WIIRY Ec iaictarsic'e. we sie ¢ Ct de 4 * ae 102 592°
Total | 184 qts
|

The cow Charley was stated to be half Ayrshire ; all the others
were of the common breed.

That evening, after all had retired, Mr. T. C. Doremus and his
friend, Mr. Root, arrived, and the next morning (Dec. 24th) the
cows were milked in our presence, and the milk tested with the
lactometer, both by the above-named gentlemen and by ourselves
The sophlta were as follows: 4 SPS

50

Morning milking—* milkers ;” milked twice daily.

|
Cow. |Amount yielded.| Lactometer. | Temperature F.
~Oharley errr. ETS «3 SEAS Soc 6 qts. 108 60°
PPIBIM CN Pek ier tic oa eine 6 os meee mee 112 601°
st SECM EROTEEY 720 cai sain Srey sie wiionaim ©: oR Ae ih 104 60°
Wa OVIDBV Mactericss: cbisorier. sayciorie Gis 5:5 «je ee ss 107 60°
Oball acer lacveinemtos 6. «eee 21 qts.

“ Strippers ;” milked but once daily.

Cow. Amount yielded.| Lactometer. | Temperature.
bo J. NaGhiGices SEG. SRN nO Soe IS EERIE Os oc 4 pint. 104 59°
SUE AVNER MAPGS eile ats AuctS tor tieye foc o cee eae Lg ans 93 59°
POO liye ere etiat els ty ciate Se iki a ela so. 6. 1s Taos 99 60°
BELOIT soe leh ni Auk» ser icis ios «OER Mince ff. 103 60°
SP OVCMLOW Lia oo selateh eile 6 aie fajele oie leo Dee es 102 605°
SMES DOUl yaa taseeee iss a EN Buy es 108 60°
Sais LEM. sete ede cats cence roles fel cle eeaeteics «onc ees 1 ee 104 594°
BI EKG eA hoch gous ISOS eEIAS 1G ie 78 60°
ABO Ga. cree store tae where aceus.se.c ON 124 pints

With the exception of the Black cow, all of the strippers were
with calf and were expected to be delivered in about 2 or 23
months. The Black cow had never yielded much milk since her
calf was taken from her, and was to be fatted and killed for beef.
Her milk looked very thin and watery, and was full of stringy
curds which clogged the strainer. Indeed the product from all
the strippers was not true milk, and was in no way suitable for
domestic use. The product from the pregnant cows was essen-
tially colostrum.

The total yield of the four regular milkers for the evening
and morning together, was 345 quarts, an average of 8% quarts
per day from each cow, which is considered a fair average yield

for the winter sesson.
i 4°

d1

The total yield from the eight strippers was 124 pints, or an
average of 14 pints per day.

The food of the cows, so far as we saw, was oat-straw only.

Mr. Mulford stated that after that morning he should not
again milk the strippers Fanny, Star, Andrew, Mooly, Spot, or
Black, until after calving.

Samples of the milk from Fanny, Mooly, and the Black cow,
all whose milk stood below 100 on the lactometer, were taken,
and, on reaching New York, they were submitted to examina-
tion. The results were as follows:

Examination of the low gravity Milk (?) from Strippers.

Fanny. Mooly . Black Cow.
REACTION: 2 oo. fais, oie tailor & Strongly alkaline. Strongly alkaline. Strongly alkaline.
Mactometers. cise. os « 93° 99° 78°
Specific Gravity......... 1.02697 1.02871 1.02262
(Tee Ta (Ween 11.50 per cent.|No distinct layer.| 10.50 per cent.
(NEC aie, GAB ereen ne 86.97 es 86.66 per cent.| 91.52 at
TAO. e245 CRE eee 4.65 ss 3.40 es 1.78 eS
Casein and Albumen.,.... 5.14 et 7.58 Us 4.39 us
PMUESe areal ere cies ss co's 0s 2.40 se 1.03 oe 1.42 uC
RONUN SRR a sis) didale ities as 0.84 “ 1.28 a 0.89 fs

Milk from Mooly yielded no well-defined layer of cream.
Milk (4) from the Black cow yielded 10.5 per cent. by volume of
scum—curdy matter mixed with fat globules. It also deposited
a sediment. Respectfully submitted,

Etwyn Watter, Ph.D.
J. T. O’Connor, M.D.
New York, Jan. 12, 1877,

Nore.—The sample of milk (?) from the “ Black cow ” on the
“Mulford Farm,” produced in court as “ pure milk,” “ standing
at 78° on the lactometer,” by Mr. T. C. Doremus, before the
visit of Doctors Waller and O’Connor, was examined by Prof.
Chandler and Dr. O’Connor, who found it after standing a week
to exhibit a strong alkaline reaction, which it has not yet lost

32

after three weeks’ standing up to the time this note was written,
to deposit a considerable sediment, and to possess a disagreeable
taste. Analysis showed it to contain

Wratten nts Seay 31, STAR M Ria ft a MEG W : 90.64

Rai hess at i Put Oe. Cea pA Seren Lees ae 2.6

Casein, |

NOUVEL, “> ).Sotenein's ase + CORREO ety tete oe cios weg “MOTTE

Sugar,

alice eats ee cet a eee PUA ert ab)
100.

The microscope showed the sediment to contain pus corpuscles.
This is an abnormal fluid, which cannot properly be called
milk.

Hollinger Corp.
pH 8.5