St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-01-03
BARNARD AND HIS MILK.
Senator Peck Gives q Version of
the Trouble and Scores the
Dairy Commissions Chemist and

Senator Peck Gives a Version of
the Trouble and Scores the
Dairy Commissions Chemist and
Detective.
To the Editor of the Globe.
In your issue of Dec. 90 an article APP
peared headed ''Pure Dairy Products"
which appears to have been written by
one Drew, the chemist of that institu-
ton known as the dairy commission.
In that article this man Drew proceeds
to give voice to his griefs, because one
Barnard, milk dealer at Merriam
junction, was not made victim to the
ignorance and stupidity of the tools of
the dairy commission. If you will allow
me brief space in your paper i'll the
interest of justice [ will endeavOr to
put Mr.. Drew right.
Mr.. Drew may be good chemist, and
if so he should attend to that business
exclusively; for, when he undertakes
to dictate to the courts and grand juries
OF this state what they should or should
not do, he will soon get himself into
trouble. In the first place, this man
Drew testified upon the witness stand
in that case. that he did not know that
he had ever analysed any of the milk of
Mr.. Barnard. He said the milk he ex-
amined was brought to him, with lot
of other specimens, by one Chapel, who
was detective for the dairy commits
sion. Chapel said he took it out of a
can at Merriam Junction; that it was
MIXED the night before, and had stood
i'll the can all night; that he dipped it
out with dipper and took some to the
chemist. Drew said he made an exam
ination of five grammeS, about a tea
spoonful. On this evidence there is not
a grand jury i'll the state that would in
diet any one, much less man of good
character and reputation for honesty,
for such man is Mr.. Barnard.
he grand jury of this county. whom
this man Drew charges with fraud,
had
COMMON SENSE ENOUGH TO KNOW
FlrSt-That there was great deal of
doubt as TO whether Barnard'S milk was
examined at all.
Seeond-If it was his milk, then the
test was made from practically skim
milk, for after the cream has once
arisen on milk it cannot be again mixed
SO as to make fair test in so small a
quantity as Was used here, if Drew is to
be believed. The dairy commission
ought to know this, but Drew is not ex-
pected to. He is not paid for knowing
that. The grand jury of this county
knew it, and when this man Drew says
that the grand jury of this county sim
ply refuse to indict, without giving any
reason, he states that which is false.
There was simply no evidence. There
was no ''palpabIe neglect of duty on
the part of the grand jury" but
there was palpable ignorance and
stupidity on the part of their
detective and Drew, or else their
anxiety to prosecute some one, and get a
little cheap advertising through the
newspapers, overcame their honesty.
The people of this county would advise
this hired servant of the dairy commits
sion to try his milk cases in the courts,
and not in the newspapers, and here
aft@r not select skim milk or milk upon
which the cream has risen from which
to make his examination. Chapel knew
the cream had risen once on the milk he
took away. Drew ought to have known
it if he knew anything about his bust
ness. Since reading his article, | be-
l1eve he did know it. There appears to
be too much method in his madness.
There is little too much zeal on
his part for the salary he gets. He
must want an increase, when OH such
facts he has the impudence to charge
the grand jury of this county with fraud.
We are all in favor of pure dairy prod
uctS, but we do not believe honest men
should be libeled by the hired tools of
the dairy commission, or that honest
men should be indicted for a crime with
out some evidence of a reliable charac-
ter. II. j. PECK,
SbakOnea Ian q