699 
working capacity correspondingly diminished, and that if, on the 
other hand, the inspector undertook to mix the pint of milk thoroughly 
in the pint jar in which it was delivered to him or to mix a quart of 
milk in a quart jar, and to abstract therefrom a sample for analysis, 
the fairness of the sample might readily be called into question in 
event of prosecution. Moreover, the act under which the prosecution 
was brought limited the size of the sample which the inspector might 
demand to “ a sample sufficient for the purpose of analysis;” and one- 
half pint of milk was sufficient, the inspector could not demand more, 
and it was not apparent why he should be required to accept more ; 
and the court of appeals had already declared (T\ T eigand v. D. C., 22 
Appeals, D. C., 559) that the subject-matter of the act of 1898, under 
which act the right to purchase the sample had been claimed, was 
plainly within the power of Congress, and that the courts could not 
amend or modify any of the provisions of that act so as to bring 
them within what might seem to be reasonable bounds; that they 
could not examine questions as expedient or inexpedient, as politic 
or impolitic. 
The court of appeals, however, after denying that any principle 
was involved in the case, and after a scathing criticism of the health 
department for the course it had pursued, said: 
A reasonable sample is what is required by the act of Congress. Under 
the circumstances of this case a pint was a reasonable sample, and a half pint 
was not such a reasonable sample. Tbe appellee was fully within his right, 
and fully performed his duty in tendering the former ; the inspector was 
wholly at fault in demanding the latter and insisting upon it against the will 
of the appellee. 
What may or may not be a reasonable sample is a question for which per- 
haps no positive rule can be laid down applicable to all cases. This is not 
for the determination exclusively either of the inspector or the dealer. The act 
requires that' it shall be “ sufficient for the purpose of analysis,” but it is not 
competent for the inspector to require, because he thinks a half pint of milk 
sufficient to enable him to make a satisfactory analysis of such milk, that 
therefore the dealer must sell him such half pint, when thereby the value 
of another half pint would be destroyed or lost to the dealer, and the dealer 
is willing to sell an entire pint at an additional cost of merely 2 cents to the 
inspector. 
II. ORGANIZATION AND DUTIES OF THE MILK-INSPECTION 
SERVICE. 
Nothing worthy of the name of a milk-inspection service can be 
said to have existed in the District of Columbia prior to the passage 
of the act of Congress of March 2, 1895, for the regulation of the sale 
of milk. Not even, in fact, was a milk-inspection service established 
by that act. The necessary authority was conferred, but no special 
inspectors or funds were provided through which to exercise that 
authority, and the health officer in the execution and enforcement 
