Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1916-10-02
CHAPTER 115

CHAPTER 115
The Deadly Testimony of Federal
Scientists and the Epoch Making
Decision of Chief Justice Shepherd
of the Court of Appeals OF the District
of Columbia Not Only Failed to Deter
the Commercial Enemies of Clean and
Safe Milk From Further Efforts to
Establish Legal Right to Label Bad
Milk Good, but They Actually In
spired a Still More Desperate Resolve
to Destroy All Scientific Standards
OF MILK Control.
The prosecution of Gregg on charges
OF selling milk reeking with bacteria
was no newly conceived experiment.
His case was one of nearly 500 then
before the courts.
Another milk dealer, Charles G. Dade,
had already been convicted in the same
Washington, D. C. court and by the
same prosecuting attorney connected
with the United States Department of
Justice.
These facts only served to emphasize
the importance of the Gregg case, be-
ginning with which, Notwithstanding
the conviction of Dade, the organization
of dirty milk defenders decided to fight
separately each of the many cases then
awaiting trial.
They openly boasted that a single
victory against the health authorities
was all they required to establish a
precedent that would enable them safe
ly to continue their profitable business
of buying dirty milk cheap, renovating
1t with a clarifer, and selling 1t under
misleading labels to an unsuspecting
public.
I'VE can lose hundred cases. but
II we catch the authorities off their
guard in one case our purposes will
be well served" they argued.
The disturbing records of the Dade
conviction threatened, IL acted upon. to
bring about a revolution in the dirty
milk business.
The explanation of the significance
OF bacteria in milk which was offered
to the jury by DIR. John F. Anderson,
director of the Hygienics Laboratory
of the United States Public Health
Service; DR.. Dieter, and Dr. Kinyoun,
bacteriologists of the Department OF
Health; DR.. Carleton Bates, bacteriolo-
gist of the Bureau OF Chemistry, and
Lore A. Rogers. bacteriologist of the
Department of Agriculture, consti-
tuted the official Interpretation of the
pressure of bacteria, on which the
United States government was pre-
pared to act. Thus 1t becomes neces-
sary for the dirty milk crowd to find
some one jury of twelve laymen who
would reject the governments scen-
tifc conclusions.
1t is because the testimony of the
governments scientists as recorded
in the Dade case. means so much to
the common people in throwing light
upon the whole subject of milk pollu-
tion that it is reproduced here.
DR.. Anderson-Milk containing such
large number of bacteria is dirty
milk, especially on account of the
large number of B. coli and strep-
tococci found in it. These two types
of bacteria come from manure, and
the milk containing them was there
fore contaminated by some means with
feces.
AS a result of the growth of these
bacteria in milk which is an animal
substance, the milk becomes decom-
posed, for the reason that when bac-
terra grow they do so at the expense
OF the medium in which they are found,
splitting it up or decomposng 1t into
various elements.
DIR. Dieter-The colon group of bac-
terra comes from fecal contamination.
When streptococcl are associated with
B. coli they still further reveal con-
tamination. The presence of both to-
gether indicates contamination. The
streptococci are found in diseased pro-
cesses of the animals intestines, and
in human beings usually in diseased
conditions, such as boils, assesses,
etc.
DIR Kinyoun - Such milk is filthy by
reason of the fact that it contained
organisms that became from dung.
Such organisms are normal and ma
tural constituents of dung, but not of
milk. Ihey find their way into milk
by allowing dung to get into it. This
can be prevented by clean methods.
We have daily instances of milk that
does not contain any. There is no
way in which B. coli can get into
milk before it leaves the COW. Sterep-
tococci are injurious to the human