The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1903-11-08
MILK LAW DECLARED
UNJUST and UNFAIR
Storm & Sherwood Case Goes
to Court of Appeals.
ADULTERATIoN NOT PROVED
Attorney Fulton Contends That Graz
ing in Wet Pastures Accounts
for Water in Product

Contending that the milk standard
fixed by Congress for the District of
Columbia is unjust and unfair. Attor-
ney Greed N Fulton. representing Storm
& Sherwood. milk dealers. recently con-
victed in the Police Court on charge OF
selling adulterated milk, will take the
case to the Court OF Appeals Of the Dis
trict. IA the hope of procuring a re-
versaI of the jury's decision
The defendants We're arrested in Au-
gust. as the result OF an Investigation
made by the Health officer at the in
stance of the Commissioners. who were
apprised of the alleged fact that num-
Der of children at the Industrial Home
School were taken III from the use of
the milk served there by Storm & Sher-
wood. The defendants at the time of
the arrest deposited 50 collateral for
their appearance in the Police Court,
and forfeited that amount by falling to
appear for trial
Defendants Rearrested.
Prosecutor Push thought the amount
forfeited and the seriousness Of the
crime were incongruous, and an attach
ment was issued for the arrest of the
defendants. Fifty dollars collateral
was then deposited. and jury trial de-
When the case went to trial Mr.. Fulton
found the Information in the case was
defective. and on that ground Judge
Kimball dismissed the case.
Prosecutor Pugh promptly filed an
other information against Storm & Sher-
wood, and the jury trial began last
Tuesday. NJ Fulton then traced the
milk from the time IL was drawn until
IT was delivered at the school The tes-
timony OF several witnesses tended to
show that no one had watered the milk.
The adulteration. the Government s
Representatives contend. consisted Of
watering the milk. The law passed by
Congress says there shall not be more
than S71z per cent Of water in sweet
milk Prof Hurd, the District Chemist,
Who is said 70 have made an analysis OF
the milk. testified that there was SO per
cent of water in II. This served to IL
lustrate that there was ~ per cent more
water than should have been in the
milk. and the charge of selling adulter-
ated milk was filed as the result OF the
analysis which Prof Hurd says he
made.
Two ellis of Water.
The quantity Of milk served at the
school by Storm & Sherwood was five
III AAA-AA 6e--AO--S "a MIN 80
exact amount of water in excess Of what
the law says is correct was two and
two-fifth gills. Mr.. Fulton contended
that no reputable milk dealer would sac
rihce his reputation and business for
two and two-fiftl- gilis OF milk.
Counse. for the defense argued that 1t
the time the herd Of cows from which
the milk was drawn was grazing on the
farm in Virginia. there we're several
heavy transforms. and it might well
have been termed 1.-The wet season. -
That Is how the excessive two and two
fifth gills Of water In the milk IS aG-
counted for.
Wet Weather and Dry.
Mr.. Fulton's chief contention is that
r.; smuch as there Is likely 10 Je more
water IN milk in wet weather than If
The dry. the standard fixed Dy Congress
is not fair to the milk dealers. In the
Storm & Sherwood case. Prosecutor
Pugh does cot charge or even intimate
that these dealers put a drop OF water
into the milk. The specific charge Is
selling adulterated milk" How she
aduIterati0n got into the milk, when, or
the quantity. is not an element in the
contention. The selling Is considered
sufficient to make a person amenable
TO the law. even though he or she does
nothing more than hand a bottle of
aduiterated milk which has just been