767 
him for the purpose and shall tender him the value of the same, a sample suffi- 
cient for the purpose of analysis of any such drug or article of food which is 
in his possession. 
The defendant had declined to sell to an inspector one-half pint 
of milk upon the tender of the usual price therefor, 2 cents, but had 
offered to sell one entire pint for I cents, alleging that he sold milk 
only in the original packages in which he received it, that he had no 
package containing less than 1 pint, and that if he sold a half-pint 
from such a package the remaining half pint would represent a loss 
to him, since his customers knew that he did not sell milk in quan- 
tities less than a pint, and that therefore he had no demand for half 
pints. The police court having sustained the position taken by the 
defendant, an appeal was taken on the recommendation of the health 
officer. It was apparent that if one dealer were permitted to refuse, 
on the grounds taken by the defendant in this case, to sell less than 
a pint, another might fairly claim the right to refuse, on the same 
grounds, to sell less than a quart, and so on; that if inspectors were 
required to accept and to bring to the laboratory samples as large as 
1 quart, or even as large as 1 pint, their return trips to the labora- 
tory from the field must be correspondingly more frequent and their 
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 (TCeigand v. D. C., 22 
Appeals, D. C., £59) 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 wliat is required by tbe act of Congress. Under 
tbe circumstances of this case a pint was a reasonable sample, and a half pint 
was not such a reasonable sample. The appellee was fully within his right, 
and fully performed his duty in tendering the former; the inspector wa§ 
