768 
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 
of the law had to rely upon the inspectors already provided for 
the sanitary and food inspection service generally, and upon the 
allotment made by the Commissioners for the contingent expenses 
of the health department from the general appropriation for that 
purpose. The health department had no veterinary surgeon in its 
employ, and for such assistance as was needed in the way of inspec- 
tions requiring the education and training of a veterinarian had to 
rely upon the veterinary surgeon employed by the District govern- 
ment, at a salary of $400 per annum, for all departments of the Dis- 
trict government. The situation of the health department under the 
circumstances was most unfortunate; errors that were made in the 
early days of the service because of an insufficient and untrained 
inspection force have come up from time to time to embarrass the 
department, and have been corrected with difficulty, if at all. 
The conditions found as the result of such early inspections as were 
made showed in many cases entire ignorance of even the most rudi- 
mentary sanitary principles connected with the production and mar- 
keting of milk. The stables were small, poorly lighted, and poorly 
drained. Many of the producers of milk had no idea of the impor- 
tance of cooling it immediately after milking, and sometimes did not 
hesitate to store it in living rooms and kitchens.® The condition of 
the cattle can be best understood from the statement made by Doctor 
Schroeder, of the Bureau of Animal Industry, as the result of the 
a Report of the Health Officer, 1896, page 21. 
