uniform that it is hardly fair to suppose that an equal error could have been made in every case. Therefore it seems reasonable to assume, in a general way, that the consumption of milk in Massachusetts cities is a little less than a pint per person per day-a little over four-tenths of a quart. In no case does this include the sales of skim milk, condensed milk, or cream.

MILK LAWS AND INSPECTION.

LEGAL STANDARD AND ADULTERATION.

All of the New England States have laws prohibiting the sale of adulterated or watered milk, or milk from which a portion of the cream has been removed. All of the States except Connecticut have a statute standard for milk.

Massachusetts prohibits the sale of milk "not of standard quality," as well as of adulterated milk, and the following statute defines standard milk:

If the milk is shown upon analysis to contain less than thirteen per cent of milk solids, or to contain less than nine and three-tenths per cent of milk solids exclusive of fat, it shall be deemed for the purposes of this act to be not of good standard quality, except during the months of April, May, June, July, and August, when milk containing less than twelve per cent of milk solids, or less than nine per cent of milk solids exclusive of fat, or less than three per cent of fat, shall be deemed to be not of good standard quality.

Nearly all of the cases entered in court for the violation of these milk laws complain of the offender for selling, or having in his possession or custody with intent to sell, "milk not of standard quality,” instead of "adulterated or watered milk.”

The Rhode Island law provides that—

If the milk shall be shown upon analysis to contain more than eighty-eight per centum of watery fluids, or to contain less than twelve per centum of milk solids, or less than two and one-half per centum of milk fats, it shall be deemed for the purpose of said sections to be adulterated.

The New Hampshire law says that if milk has less that 13 per cent of milk solids said fact "shall be prima facie evidence" that the milk is adulterated. But evidence that milk has less than 13 per cent solids is frequently rebutted by producing or offering to produce some cow which gives milk of less than 13 per cent solids, and therefore the whole law is nullified.

In Maine, "when milk shall be found to contain over 88 per cent of water it shall be deemed prima facie evidence that said milk has been watered, and when milk by the analysis aforesaid shall be found to contain less than 12 per cent of solids and less than 3 per cent of fat it shall be deemed, prima facie, milk from which cream has been taken." This is similar to the New Hampshire law, but we have heard no complaints from Maine over the words "prima facie."

Vermont, like Massachusetts, prohibits the sale of milk "not of good standard quality," as well as adulterated milk, milk from which a por

tion of the cream has been removed, etc. The Vermont statute defines standard milk as follows:

Standard milk shall contain not less than twelve and one-half per cent of solids, or not less than nine and one-fourth of total solids exclusive of fat, except in the months of May and June, when it shall contain not less than twelve per cent of total solids.

The laws of the several States also have regulations for promoting honesty in sales of skim milk, such as labeling cans, etc.

Wine measure is by law the standard measure.

OFFICIAL INSPECTION.

All of the States except Vermont and Connecticut have special laws providing for the enforcement of these milk regulations.

In Massachusetts, cities are required and towns are allowed to appoint milk inspectors. In Boston the present milk inspector is a man of ability and energy. He has a respectable salary and sufficient appropriation for collectors of samples, laboratory, etc. Hence the work of milk inspection in that city is very efficiently performed. The following statistics of his work show how thorough it is, and also, inferentially, something of the quality of the Boston supply, the ratio of samples taken to court cases being very small.

In a number of other Massachusetts cities-Lowell, for instance-good work is also done; but in most cases the salary is nominal and the work corresponds, though most of the inspectors earn more than they get. Very few of the towns avail themselves of the permission to appoint inspectors. To cover the field where local inspection is weak, the State board of health and the State dairy bureau are also given authority to enforce the dairy laws. The following statistics show the work of the board of health, scattered over the State:

Convictions followed in about 90 per cent of the cases.

Rhode Island has a law similar to Massachusetts as regards local milk inspectors. New Hampshire law permits the appointment of such officers. In Maine, cities and towns of not less than 3,000 inhabitants must appoint milk inspectors. In most cases, however, in all of these

States there is little inspection and in many cases no inspector. Particular mention should be made of the good work in Providence, R. I., Nashua, N. H., and Hartford, Conn. The inspector of the latter city is appointed under the provisions of a city ordinance.

The regulations in the different States as to the duties and authorities of milk inspectors are similar. The inspectors and collectors of samples employed by them are authorized to enter all places where milk is stored or kept for sale and all carriages used for the conveyance of milk and take samples for analysis from all such places or carriages.

The laws of the different States where there are milk inspectors provide for registering and licensing milk dealers for a nominal fee. This is done for the purpose of securing proper identification of the dealer. The legal supervision hitherto noticed has related almost entirely to the commercial fraud of selling less food than the purchaser supposes he is receiving for his money-i. e., milk watered, skimmed, or naturally of less than average quality.

SANITARY LAWS AND INSPECTION.

All of the States have laws relative to the healthfulness of the milk supply. Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire prohibit the sale of milk from sick or diseased cows or cows fed upon the refuse of breweries or distilleries or upon any substance deleterious to its quality. Connecticut prohibits the sale of "impure milk" and milk from cows which shall have been adjudged by the commission upon diseases of domestic animals to be affected with tuberculosis or other blood disease. A Massachusetts law imposes a fine upon "whoever knowingly feeds or has in his possession with intent to feed to any milch cow any garbage, refuse, or offal collected by any city or town."

There is, however, no especial sanitary inspection of milk and its sources in any New England town or city, and cases are rarely brought in court for violation of any of the above sanitary laws. The milk inspection now in vogue relates almost exclusively to commercial frauds rather than to health matters. The Massachusetts state board of health has done some good work in investigating several typhoid fever epidemics, which in a number of cases have been traced to the milk supply. Local boards of health, however, have considerable authority, and in several cases they have issued orders or made regulations in advance of the average practice of the State. Hartford, Conn., Portland, Me., and Lynn, Mass., are instances. The contagious-cattledisease law of Massachusetts provides for a cattle inspector in each town, who makes a semiannual inspection of neat stock, quarantining suspected animals, which are subsequently tuberculin-tested, and it found to be diseased are destroyed. In a few instances-Pittsfield, for example-the milk inspector and cattle inspector are one and the same person, which is a decided advantage.

The milk inspector of Nashua, N. H., has a unique and commendable system of sanitary inspection of the milk supply of that city, which is said to work well. Although his official powers are confined to the city limits and to the commercial fraud of selling adulterated or lowgrade milk, all peddlers-mostly producers-are required to answer the following questions when they register:

1. Name of owner? 2. Number of cows? 3. Number of each breed? 4. Food of cows? 5. How is manure stored? 6. Quantity of milk produced per day? 7. Where is milk stored? 8. How is milk cooled? 9. Temperature of milk when sold? 10. Source of water supply for stock and for washing cans? 11. Distance of water supply from barnyard; from privy vault; from cesspool? 12. Are any cows sick upon your premises; if so, how many, and with what disease? 13. Are any persons engaged in handling milk sick?

The inspector also calls from time to time on the farmers who produce milk for the city, even when they reside out of his official jurisdiction. He makes such investigation of the premises as he is permitted, and reports to the board of aldermen the condition of affairs. The board then orders the report published in the local papers. To most milk producers the publicity of an unfavorable milk report is more of a punishment than a court fine, while a favorable report is a valuable advertisement. Hence, as much is accomplished as if there were more stringent laws, and there is none of the friction that might arise from over-officiousness or unpopular official prying. He also issues the following:

[Circular.]

CITY OF NASHUA, N. H., DEPARTMENT OF MILK INSPECTION.

The importance of education in the better care of milk is so great that I feel it a duty to call attention to certain precautions necessary to a good product. The average farmer has so many cares that he sometimes fails to give this important subject proper attention.

Milk in the udder of the healthy cow contains none of the microorganisms of fermentation or decay, and could it be drawn thence into an hermetically sealed receptacle, without coming in contact with the air, it would keep without change for an indefinite time. Of course this is not practicable in an ordinary dairy, but care can certainly be exercised that the surrounding atmosphere with which it does come in contact is as free as possible from germs, odors, or taints, for these the milk absorbs with great rapidity.

Milk which has stood for ten minutes in an open vessel in a tainted atmosphere will be found to contain from 10,000 to 100,000 germs per cubic centimeter (a cubic centimeter represents about one-third of a cubic inch), while in two hours from 2,000,000 to 5,000,000 germs will be found per cubic centimeter. This prodigious increase can be stopped by removing the milk to a proper cooler. I have explained the necessity of pure water and wholesome food for cows so often before that I will not repeat it. But I wish to call attention to the following precautions in the handling of milk:

All stables should be ventilated.

They should be as clean as possible.

Cows should be carefully groomed.

The milk should be drawn from the cow as rapidly as possible.

The milk should not be left standing in the stable a moment longer than necessary.

The cooler should be so remote from the stable that no odors can reach it.

Its temperature should be at from 45° to 50° F., and

The milk should be aerated to remove animal odors.

Under these improved conditions cows not only yield better milk but more of it, and amply repay the labor and trouble expended upon them.

There are in this vicinity dairies infamous alike in their cruelty to animals, in their brutalizing influence upon men, and in their disease-spreading effects upon infants and the general community; but I believe that a vast majority of our farmers desire to do right if but the means and knowledge were presented to them.

I. F. GRAVES, Inspector of Milk.

Health orders.-The board of health of the city of Boston has the following regulation:

Whereas cows' milk is one of the most common and necessary articles of food, and is oftentimes seriously impaired in usefulness and rendered dangerous to health by the want of proper care in its production or subsequent treatment and handling; it is, therefore, ordered that the following regulation be and is hereby adopted:

SECTION 1. No person shall use any building as a stable for cows unless it contains at least 1,000 cubic feet of space for each animal, is well lighted and ventilated, has tight roof and floors, good drainage, a supply of pure water, and all other necessary means for maintaining the health and good condition of the cows, and has been approved by the board of health.

SEC. 2. Every person using any such building shall keep the same and the premises connected therewith, and all land used for pasturage of the cows, clean and free from filth.

SEC. 3. Every person keeping a milch cow shall permit it to be examined from time to time, as to its freedom from disease, by a veterinarian designated by the board of health.

SEC. 4. No person having an infectious disease, or having recently been in contact with any such person, shall milk cows or handle cans, measures, or other vessels used for milk intended for sale, or in any way take part or assist in handling milk intended for sale, until all danger of communicating such disease to other persons shall have passed.

SEC. 5. No person shall sell or use for human food the milk of a diseased cow, or permit such milk to be mixed with other milk, nor until it has been boiled shall use such milk, or any mixture of such milk, for food of swine or other animals.

QUALITY OF MILK SOLD.

The word quality when applied to milk may mean the amount of milk solids (which is the best acceptation) or it may have reference to flavor, disease germs, bacteria of decay, etc. From what has been said above it will be seen that in whatever sense we use the word the quality of milk receives considerable attention, especially as to its composition.

In Massachusetts the law creating a legal standard of 12 and 13 per cent is well enforced, and milk in the market usually averages even above the standard. All of the large Boston wholesalers employ chemists, who devote all of their time to testing the supplies which they receive. If the milk of any dairy is below the statute standard, warning is sent to the producer, and if the warning does not result in an improved quality of milk the supply from that dairy is dropped. In some instances where there is unmistakable evidence of watering the