767 
S 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. 
f The defendant had declined to sell to an inspector one-half pint 
f of milk upon the tender of the usual price therefor, 2 cents, but had 
offered to sell one entire pint for 4 cents, alleging that he sold milk 
( only in the original packages in which he received it, that he had no 
I package containing less than 1 pint, and that if he sold a half-pint 
I 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- 
I tities less than a pint, and that therefore he had no demand for half 
I pints. The police court having sustained the position taken by the 
; defendant, an appeal was taken on the recommendation of the health 
I; 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 
j 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 
S 1 quart, or even as large as 1 pint, their return trips to the labora- 
5 tory from the field must be correspondingly more frequent and their 
i 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 
L was brought limited the size of the sample which the inspector might 
I demand to “ a sample sufficient for the purpose of analysis;” and one- 
I 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 (Weigand 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 
f 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 
i 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 wbat 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 wdthin his right, 
i and fully performed his duty in tendering the former; the inspector was 
