Q. Have you made large researches concerning the milk of woman? A. I have. The COURT-You need not answer that; I exclude that. COUNSEL-I except. Q. Now, Doctor Mott, how many times have you analyzed milk which you knew to be pure? A. I have analyzed milk that I have known to be pure-you mean cow's milk? Q. I refer now only to cow's milk, not to negro women? A. I have made six analyses of milk that I knew to be pure. Q. How did you know it to be pure? A. My assistant stood by and saw the cows milked and brought me the milk. Q. Did you see it milked? A. My assistant, whom I place perfect confidence in, saw it milked. Q. Did you see it milked? A. I only saw it through the confidence I place in my assistant. Q. Were you present when the cow was milked? A. No, sir. Q. That is what you call knowledge of the purity of milk given you by your assistant? A. Sufficient to any sensible person, I think. Q. Have you analyzed any milk concerning the purity of which you had any greater or further knowledge than the information. given you by your assistant? A. I have never analyzed any milk that I have stood by and seen taken from the animal. Q. Could you tell from the statement of your assistant that the cows from which this milk had come were healthy? A. My results would speak for themselves. Q. How do they speak for themselves? A. If I had found one specimen of the specific gravity less than 1.029, I would safely conIclude that the milk was abnormal. Q. How often have you tested cow's milk, which you knew to be pure cow's milk, with the lactometer? A. Five times which I knew to be pure and at least 20 to 25 milk which I had not sufficient evidence to be pure. Q. How did you know those five specimens to be pure? A. My assistant obtained them for me and stood by and saw the cows milked. Q. That is the only knowledge you have on the subject? A. Yes, sir; that is all I required. By Mr. LAWRENCE-Q. Did you make the test by the lactometer? A. I made the test by the lactometer which I had procured and which I had verified by first obtaining the specific gravity by an instrument, and then by weighing the milk on the scales. Q. Did you use the thermometer in making those five tests with the lactometer? A. I did; I wished to have my results scientifically accurate. Q. At what degree? A. At 60 degrees Fahr. Q. Did you make any memorandum of it at the time, showing the results of that examination? A. Yes, I think I did. Q. Have you it with you? A. I have not. Q. When did you make those five tests, Doctor? A. I made them between December and February of last year: I made other tests since then. Q. December of last year, and February of this year? A. Yes, sir. Q. Among the articles that you have published on this subject did one appear in the New York Herald on the 14th February, 1876? A. It did, sir. Q. State whether I read correctly from that article: "I have frequently met with samples of fresh cow's milk having a specific gravity between 1.029 and 1.030, but only once have I ever found the specific gravity below 1.029. The sample I refer to was milked from an Alderney cow owned by a gentleman at Nyack, which gave a specific gravity of 1.028.64 at 60 Fahr.; on analyzing this sample the milk proved richer in milk solids than any milk I have been able to find recorded," is that correct? A. That is correct, but I wish to explain; I had at that time a gentleman in my laboratory whom I requested to obtain a sample from an Alderney cow at Nyack; he obtained the sample, I tested it, believing it to be a fair average sample of that particular cow thoroughly mixed together, and I believed the cow to be in a perfectly healthy state; I afterwards found that he was not present when the sample was obtained, and could not give me any evidence that the sample was a fair average of all the milk; not knowing that the results were correct for that particular sample, but not for milk in general. Q. The assistant who did all this, was he the same assistant who gave you the information of the purity of 5 samples? A. I did not say he was an assistant, he was a gentleman in my laboratory. Q. Was he your assistant? A. No, sir. Q. You did not allow me to finish my reading, shall I proceed?"I therefore do not hesitate to say that any milk which tests below a hundred on the instrument adopted by the Board of Health has been tampered with?" A. That is correct. Q. What do you regard as the best test for milk? A. I regard the best test for the purity of milk chemical analysis. Q. Is that better than the use of the lactometer? A. For the purity it has never been claimed that the lactometer would decide; the lactometer will detect the adulteration of milk by water and that is all that is claimed by the lactometer. Q. Now, Dr. Mott, will the lactometer show the quantity of added water which milk that has been adulterated by water contains? A. It will show that the milk has added to it water. Q. Will it show how much water has been added? A. It will show how much water has been added more accurately than by any other process; for this reason, we have amongst scientific men a standard for the specific gravity of milk, but we have not the percentage of water contained in milk. Q. Cannot you tell more definitely by analysis how much water, added and natural, a sample of milk contains than you can by the lactometer? A. No, sir; added and contained did you say? Q. Added and natural? A. Well the lactometer does not pretend to tell the amount of water normal to healthy milk. Q. Will you give simply an affirmative or negative answer? A. Chemical analysis will give the amount of water in milk. Q Will chemical analysis show how much water has been added to milk adulterated by water? A. No, sir; because we have no standard for the percentage of water in milk. Q. Has not a paper of Professor Chandler's giving a standard been published in several papers? A. I am not familiar with the fact that according to my researches that that standard has been accepted. Q. Why don't you answer that, Professor Chandler has published such a standard? A. I might publish such a standard myself; I have seen such a standard published by Professor Chandler. Q. Now, don't you think that analysis ought to be added to the thermometrical tests, to the tests generally used by the Board of Health? A. I consider that the addition of analysis would elaborate the results, but whether analysis would benefit the determination of adulteration by water I think is unnecessary. Q. Then you think it unnecessary to add analysis to determine. adulteration by water, is that it? A. That is my opinion. Q. I ask you if this is a correct extract from your article I have before alluded to: "But the Board of Health does not rely simply upon the lactometer; when any sample of milk has a specific gravity less than the mark 100 on their instrument, or when a sample of milk presents any appearance of being tampered with, the milk is submitted to chemical analysis"? A. That is a fact, and shows how thorough they are in proving the adulteration of milk. Q. That is a correct extract from your article? A. That is very correct. By Mr. PRENTICE-Q. Are you connected with the Board of Health? A. In no way. Q. Have you ever been? A. Never. HERMAN ENDEMANN, sworn and examined by Mr. Prentice, testified as follows: Q. You are a chemist by profession? A. Yes, sir. Q. And have been how many years? A. I commenced, I think in 1857. Q. You took your degree where? A. In Marburg, in Germany. Q. And what has been your course and experience since? A. I have been for three years as instructor at the Polytechnic School in Stuttgart; I was for two years private assistant to Professor Chandler at the School of Mines, and after that I was appointed in the Health Department in 1869. Q. You have paid attention to this milk question and made experiments and tests? A. Yes, sir. Q. The lactometer is a kind of hydrometer? A. Yes, it is a hydrometer. Q. And is the hydrometer an accurate instrument for determining the specific gravity of liquids? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is there any more accurate method of determining the specific gravity of liquids than by the use of such an instrument? A. No, sir, not for any practical purposes. Q. Is the standard of 1.029 a correct standard for pure, sound milk? A. Yes, sir; I consider it a good one-a very good one. Q. You are familiar with the literature on this subject, are you? A. I paid a little attention to it—not much. Q. If a sample of milk offered for sale in this city at a temperature of 60 Fahr., tested by the lactometer standard of the Board of Health at 1.029 should rate at 90 on the lactometer, what would that determine in your opinion? (Objected to; question withdrawn.) Q. I will ask, in your opinion, is the lactometer as accurate a method as any for testing the adulteration by water of milk offered for sale in this city, when used with the thermometer at a degree of 60 Fahr., and with the observation and the use of the senses of the inspector? (Objected to, on the ground that it calls for the expression of an opinion on the part of the witness as to the qualifications of the inspector, and as to his sense of smell, etc.; objection overruled.) A. As far as the senses are concerned, I cannot say what the inspector is able to do, but as far as the lactometer is concerned, if the lactometer is down at 90 at a temperature of 60 Fahr., it is evident that the milk has been watered, provided it is not the milk of an individual cow, but commercial milk. Cross-examined: Q. Have you made an analysis of milk? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you made tests, with the lactometer, of milk? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you verified the lactometers which you used on these occasions? A. In every case I always made an analysis. Q. In every test you made by the lactometer, I understand you to say, you verified by analysis? A. Yes, sir. |