case were not contradicted, and the ordinance was enforced.2 In another Missouri case an ordinance required that the milk on analysis should show not less than three percent by weight of butter fat, "estimated gravimetrically by the Adams paper coil process." This ordinance was upheld.

"The court can not say, as a matter of law, that it was unreasonable for the assembly to provide that the weight of the butter fat should be estimated, calculated, or ascertained gravimetrically, or measured by weight, nor that the adoption of the 'Adams paper coil process' was not a proper gravimeter. The assembly unquestionably had the right, dealing, as it was, with a scientific question, to fix a scientific standard, and in the absence of all showing to the contrary, this court can not take judicial cognizance that the Adams paper coil process was not a proper test. By so fixing it, a definite standard, controlling alike upon the city and the one charged with a violation of the ordinance, was established, and the weight of the milk can be ascertained scientifically, and not left to the uncertain opinions of witnesses, whether experts or laymen, and to the judgment of inspectors. On the contrary, if no fixed standard or test was established by ordinance, the vendor of the milk might well complain that his rights had been left to the unregulated judgment of the inspectors, or, if no one gravimeter had been specified, then he might well complain that different tests. might lead to different results and to varying standards of purity. This ordinance looks to his protection by providing that, when an inspector takes a sample of milk or cream for analysis, 'the person, firm, or corporation from whom the sample is taken shall, on demand therefor, then and there, have a right to a duplicate of said sample, sealed with the seal of the officer, on tendering him a suitable receptacle therefor.' In this manner he can have his milk of the same quality tested by any disinterested chemist by the

2 St. Louis v. Liessing, 190 Mo. 464, 89 S. W. 611, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 918, 109 Am. St. 774; St. Louis v. Bippen, 201 Mo. 528, 100

S. W. 1048; St. Louis v. Grafeman Dairy Co., 190 Mo. 507, 89 S. W. 627, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 926.

same method, and is not conclusively bound by the analysis of the city chemist. The argument of convenience urged by defendant we do not regard as of great weight. The ordinance does not attempt to change the rules of evidence, but is scrupulous to preserve to the vendor evidence under the official seal of the inspector which he may submit to an unbiased, disinterested chemist, to be tested by identically the same standard as that which the city proposes to use to determine whether he has or has not violated the ordinance. He has his day in court, and by his counsel can subject the city chemist to the most rigid examination as to his method of testing the milk, and then, if adverse, meet it with the testimony of his own expert. The ordinance nowhere makes the test of the city chemist conclusive upon defendant. It simply fixes a standard, and leaves the question of whether or not his milk is up to the standard, according to the prescribed test for all alike, to be ascertained by settled principles of legal evidence. We think there is nothing to differentiate this case in principle from the others in which we have sustained the constitutionality of the ordinance."" "The use of milk," said the Supreme Court of Maryland, "as an article of food enters largely, as we all know, into the daily consumption of every household, and there is no more fruitful source of disease than the use of adulterated and unwholesome milk. And if the appellant's contention be right, that the question whether or not milk, which is daily offered for sale in every part of a large and populous city, comes up to the standard prescribed by the ordinance, must be determined by the ordinary process of judicial investigation, or by chemical analysis, it would be impossible to prevent the danger to the public health necessarily resulting from impure and unwholesome milk. And it is absolutely necessary, therefore, that the appellee should have the power to provide for its inspection by proper means and instruments, and if, upon such inspection, it shall be found not to come up to the standard prescribed by the ordinance, 3 St. Louis v. Grafeman Dairy Co., 190 Mo. 507, 89 S. W. 627, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 926.

to direct that the offending thing shall be destroyed." A statute which declares chemical analysis conclusive evidence of guilt, and incapable of contradiction except by other chemical analysis, is valid, not depriving a man of his liberty without due process of law."

§ 31. Designating Officers to Determine Purity of FoodAnalysis.

It is within the power of a State to designate an officeras its chemist-to determine the purity of samples of food submitted to him, and even to make his analysis prima facie evidence. So a municipality may likewise designate an officer for that purpose. The fact that only one officer is designated does not render either the statute or ordinance invalid. "Dealers in milk," said the Supreme Court of Missouri, "would unquestionably have a much more valid grievance if each case had to be submitted to the police justice or a jury, to determine the standard of milk according to their own ideas, and making their individual judgment a standard of right and wrong. The ordinance, as passed, instead of leaving the standard of milk to the caprice of the city chemist, contains a permanent legal provision which operates generally and impartially for its enforcement. The fact that the chemist has [been] charged with the duty of analyzing all milk submitted to him by the various inspectors in no sense deprives the seller of milk of any constitutional right. It was pointed out by the Supreme Court in Fischer v. St. Louis' that it was perfectly competent to delegate such a power as is conferred upon the city chemist by this ordinance to a single individual." "Nowhere in the ordinance before us is an analysis of the city chemist made conclusive of the quality of the milk sold or offered for sale by a dealer in milk, but the particular section challenged in this case

4 Deems v. Baltimore, 80 Md. 164, 30 Atl. 648, 26 L. R. A. 541, 45 Am. St. 339.

5 People v. Cipperly, 101 N. Y. 634, 4 N. E. 107, reversing 37 Hun

319; People v. Eddy, 59 Hun 615, 12 N. Y. Supp. 628.

1194 U. S. 361, 24 Sup. Ct 673, 48 L. Ed. 1018.

simply provides one uniform standard of quality of milk and for a uniform test in case of contested analysis of milk condemned under this ordinance. The owner of milk is in no manner deprived of his right to contest the analysis of the city chemist; but it is his right and privilege, when prosecuted for violation of this section, to have his milk tested by other competent chemists and by the same standard, so that it cannot be said that such dealers are deprived of the due process of law in the protection of their personal rights or property. The validity of the provisions providing for the inspection of milk violates no law or constitutional right of the defendant."'2

§ 32. Coloring Milk and Cream.

On the ground that the coloring of milk and cream is a deception on the public and an unfair advantage over honest competitors, a municipality may, under authority granted it to inspect milk, to secure the general health by any necessary measures, and to pass all ordinances expedient in maintaining the health and welfare of a city, forbid the sale of milk and cream containing coloring matter.1

2 St. Louis v. Liessing, 190 Mo. 464, 89 S. W. 611, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 918, 109 Am. St. 774; State v. Newton, 45 N. J. L. 475, 476; Commonwealth v. Carter, 132 Mass. 12.

1 St. Louis v. Polinsky, 190 Mo. 516, 89 S. W. 625. Speaking of this case the court afterwards said: "We held in that case that adding annatto, whether harmful or not, in order to give milk the rich and golden color of milk from cows fed on green food, was a deception and a fraud upon milk users and on honest competitors, and that an ordinance prohibiting it was a reasonable and valid police regulation. That pronouncement was the unani

mous resolution of this court in bank. It was made on a review of many authorities on full consideration, and has never since been shaken or exploded." St. Louis v. Jud (Mo.), 139 S. W. 441. This case involved the use of annatto, which is a red or yellowish-red dye, prepared from the pulp surrounding the seeds of a tree of tropical America (Bixa orellana), and used for coloring cheese, etc.-Webster's Dictionary, lit. "Annatto."

"A yellowish-red dye obtained from the pulp enclosing the seeds of the arnotto tree of Central America, the name used in commerce and literature. Its coloring being fugitive, its chief use is

§ 33. Milk of Cows Fed on Still Slop or from Diseased Cows.

The State may prohibit the sale of milk from cows fed on still slops, or slop from distilleries, or brewer's slop or brewer's grain; or milk from diseased cows. Such a statute is "aimed at offenses against public health, and is exercised under the police power of the State for the protection of the health of its citizens." "The development in the science of bacteriology in recent years," said the court, "has conclusively proved that the microbe is a most potent agent in the propagation of contagious diseases, and that there is no more favorable element for their absorption, growth and development than milk, and that milk contaminated by their presence communicates diphtheria, typhoid fever, tuberculosis, and other kindred contagious diseases to human beings, especially to the young. And it is a matter of common knowledge that the conditions usually prevailing around. places where 'still slop' is produced are also highly favorable to the development of many forms of bacilli. The heat, dampness and fermentation-all essential elements in the production of still slop-are favorable to germ growth. So that we may fairly presume that the general assembly, in its enactment of this statute, had sufficient information to justify its belief that milk from cows fed on still slop had ample opportunity to become impregnated with elements dangerous to the public health. Nearly every police regulation affects to some extent property rights; and whilst this power can not be made the excuse for oppressive and unjust legislation, the courts are not permitted to say that the Legislature may not enact laws apparently necessary for the public health. We have reached the conclusion that, under the facts of this case, this court has no power to hold that the general assembly did not have under the 'police power'

in coloring butter, cheese and varnish."-Standard Dictionary; lit. "Annatto."

1 So far as tuberculosis being

communicated by animals to persons, there has been much dispute among scientists. See Wiley on

Foods and Their Adulteration 13.