766 
In tliis case the offer was made to show, and the conrt was requested to 
declare, nor that the act of Congress required milk to conform to an impossible 
standard or test, or that the milk offered for sale should contain constituents 
that nature did not supply, but that the standard prescribed was unreasonably 
high, and could not by ordinary care be maintained through all seasons of the 
year. There may be difficulty in keeping up the standard throughout the year, 
and more expense and greater effort may be required at some seasons of the 
year than at others. But the very object of the statute was to require this 
more than ordinary expense and labor, on the part of the owner of cows, to 
keep up and maintain the prescribed standard of milk when necessary : and this 
is accomplished by propter care of and food supplied to the animals producing 
the milk. For it is well known that the quality and richness of milk depend 
largely upon the condition of the animal, the care with which it is kept, and 
the kind and quantity of food supplied to it. It is not attempted to be shown 
that 34 per cent of fat, as a constituent of good milk, is greater than can be sup-_ 
plied by proper care of, and good and abundant food supplied to, the cows. 
If the proposition of the defendant were sustained, the question of the reason- 
ableness of the statute would be one of fact for the jury, and we should likely 
have different juries determining the question in different ways. We think the 
court was clearly right in its ruling upon this question, and in holding that 
the question, whether the standard of milk prescribed by the statute was reason- 
able or not, was not open to inquiry on the trial. 
In tlie police court TTeigand liad been denied, too. the right to show 
by evidence the specific purpose for which he had in his possession 
the milk front which the sample was taken, but the appellate court 
found no error in the exclusion of such evidence, saying : 
But under section 3 of the act of 1S9S the question is whether the sale was 
made of the article, which was in fact under the standard prescribed by the 
law. The party making tin sale is 1 and at his peril to know what he is sell- 
ing, and. to keep within the law. he must know that the article complies with 
the standard of excellence and purity prescribed by the law. Unless this be so, 
it would be very difficult, if not impossible, ever to convict a party of a viola- 
tion of the law. And for the same reason the court below was right in refusing 
to allow the defendant to introduce evidence to show for what purpose he had 
kept the milk on hand — that being entirely immaterial, if he sold the milk that 
did not bear the test prescribed. 
The other questions decided by TTeigand i\ District of Columbia 
are not material for present purposes. 
The third case. District of Columbia i\ Garrison. 0 decided May 23, 
1905. arose under the provisions of "An act relating to the adultera- 
tion of foods and drugs in the District of Columbia." approved Feb- 
ruarv 17. 1S98, * 6 and required the determination of the extent of the 
riofht of the inspectors in the service of the health department to 
XDurchase samples of food for analysis, under section 6 of the act. 
which is as follows: 
■That, every person offering for sale or delivering to any purchaser any drug 
"or article of food included in the provisions of this act shall furnish to any 
analyst or other officer or agent of the health department, who shall apply to 
a 25 Appeals, D. C., 563. 
6 30 Stats., 246. 
