Omaha daily bee., 1889-02-17
THE TEXAN CATTLE LAW.
Tested in the Highest Court By a
Council Bluffs Case.
SERMONS AND SERVICES
st. Paul's Rector 20 BE Held Here
Missing Records Found The
Day in the District Court
Personals.


The state OF Iowa has a law making
a person having in his possession any
Texas cattle. which have not been win
tered north of the southern boundary
of Missouri and Kansas, liable for any
damages that may accrue from allowing
them to run at large, and thereby
spreading the disease known as Texas
fever.
a suit was commenced some time ago
by p. c. Kimmish against j.. j. Ball and
Henry Tienken, claiming about s., 1000
damages for loss OF cattle, which got the
Texas fever on account of Texas cattle
which Ball and Tienken had brought
into this state and allowed TO run at
large in Union township, Harrison
county.
To their petition the defendants de-
INJURED on the ground that the state OF
Iowa was undertaking by this law to
regulate and interfere with interstate
commerce.. and that the Iowa statute
was in conflict with the constitution of
the United States relative to the privi-
legcs aud ~immunities of citizens of the
several states.
Judge Love, of the United States cir
cult court. when the case came up here,
sustained the demurrer, and the case
was then taken to the United States SUI
preme court. Its decision us now given
]reverscs the decision given by Judge
Love, virtually deciding that the Iowa
law is valid.
The court, after touching lightly
upon the numerous theories as to what
is meant by Texas cattle and what
causes the Texas fever, said:
THAT cattle coming from those sec
tions of the country Texas, Mexico,
Arkansas, Indian Territory, etc. dur
ing the spring and summer months are
often infected with n contagious and
dangerous fever, is a notorious fact; as
is is also the fact that cold weather.
such as is usual in the winter north of
the southern boundary OF Missouri and
Kansas, destroys the virus of the dis
ease, and thus removes all danger of in
lection. it is upon these notorious facts
that the legislation of Iowa for the ex-
clusion from their limits of these cattle,
! unless they have passed a winter north,
is based.
We are unable to appreciate the
force of the objection, that such legis-
lation is in conflict with the paramount
authority of congress to regulate inter-
| state commerce.. We do not see that it
has anything TO do with commerce; it is
only leVelled against allowing diseased
Texas cattle, held within the state, to
run at large. The case is, therefore.
reduced to this, whether the same state
may not provide that whoever permits
diseased cattle in his possession
to run ut large within its
limits shall be liable for
any damages caused by the spread of
the disease occasioned thereby: and
upon that we do not entertain the
slightest doubt. There is no denial of
any rights and privileges to citizens
Of other states which are accorded to
citizens of Iowa. No II can allow dis
eased cattle to run at large in Iowa
without being held responsible for the
damages caused by the spread of disease
thereby; and the clause Of the constitu-
ton declaring that the citizens of each
state shall be entitled to AL the privi-
leges and immunities of citizens in the
several states does not give nOn-resi-
dent citizens of Iowa any greater priv
leges and immunities in hat state than
her W citizens there enjoy. So far as
liability is concerned for the act men
toned, citizens of other states and citi-
zens of Iowa stand upon the same foot
ing"