Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1889-03-18


| faith in the consttutionality OF this act
solely upon the opinion OF Mr.. Broad
head. The only question, i'll our opinion,
which is worthy of discussion in this
matter is whether or not an inspection
of stock upon the hoof, amounting to u
practical prohibition OF the meat OF cat
tie slaughtered aud dressed without the
confines of the territory, is such an ex-
ercise of that police power" which, as
Mr. Broadhead says, has not been sur
rendered by the state to the national
government, rs amounts to regulation
of inter states commerce extending to a
prohibition.
Mr.. Broudhead does not probe the
true inwardness" of the subject Of his
opinion until he reaches the concluding
paragraph, where he says:
"If the object is to guard against the
sale OF unhealthy meat, and its unsound-
ness can rs we'll, or better, be detected
before the animal is slaughtered, then
live stock inspection may be resorted to,
to the exclusion OF any other mode OF in
spection, or in conjunction with some
other mode, as the law making power
NAV determine. OF course inspection
laws would amount to nothing unless the
inspection is made test of the sOundneSS
or unsoundness of the article inspected,
and, therefore, il live stock inspection is
made the test, then the sale of the meat
OF animals not so inspected may be for
hidden, no matter how sound or healthy
it may be. But, after all, it is
for the law making power OF the state to
determine what is the best mode OF as
Certaining the fact whether the article
offered for sale, or proposed to be offered
for sale, is fit for human food.
By this it will be seen that reliance is
placed upon the broad assertion that the
state is the Judge and has the power to
designate what shall be the test of the in
spection, whether before or after slaugh-
ter. No one will deny that state has
the power to pass inspection laws COM
polling an inspection, for sanitary pur-
poses, of meat after it has been dressed
and prepared for consumption, but where
this distinguished jnrlst finds single
respectable authority to maintain the
proposition that the state can make an
inspection law which amounts to pro-
hibition OF the sale Of an article of inter
state commerce, We are at q loss to dis
cover.
On the contrary, Mr.. Justice Matthews,
in the opinion delivered in Bowman w.
Rd. Co., l25 U. S., at page 4S9, says: at
has never been regarded as within the
legitimate scope Of inspection laws to for
bid trade in respect to any known article
of commerce, irrespective of its condition
and quality, merely on account OF its in
trinsiC nature and the injurious Conse-
quences Of its use or abuse.
Doubtless the states have power to pro.
vide by law suitable measures to prevent
/ tho introduction into the states of articles
of trade, which, on account of their exist
ing condition, would bring i'll and spread
disease, pestilence and death, such as
rags, or other substances infected with
/ the germs of yellow fever or the virus Of
small pox, or cattle or meat or other pro-
visions that are diseased or decayed OF
otherwise unfit, from their condition and
quality, for human use or consumption.
Such articles are not merchantable they
are not legitimate subjects of trade"
/ And Mr.. Justice Catron in the license
cases, 3 How. 504, says: The assumption
is that the police power was not touched
by the constitution, hut left to the states
: az the constitution found it. y
But this inspection laws must always
depend on facts subject to legal ascertain
ment so that the injured may have re-
dress. And the TACT must find its sup
port in this, whether the prohibited article
! belongs to and is subjected to be regulated
as part Of foreign commerce, or OF com
mercc among the states. If from it,
nature it does not belong to commerce
or if its condition from putrescence Oh
other cause is such when it is about t
enter the state that it no longer belong!
to commerce, or in other words, is not /
commercial article, then the state powe
may exclude its introduction. And as in
cident to this power, state may us,
means to ascertain the fact"
The last sentence in the above citation
is the doctrine in a nut shell. May us'
means to ascertain the fact" What ar,
these means? 1t is an inspection on tn,
hoof prior to slaughter, which will exclude
allmeat prepared and dressed outside from
sale and consumption within, or is it no
that the state or territory may adop
means, a reasonable inspection law, com
pelling an inspection of such consign
ments Of beef and pork, prior to thei
crossing the territorial line, exactly as i
done in the matter OF shipments into tn
territory OF cattle from certain sections O
country during certain seasons OF the yeai
Should the opinion of Mr.. Broadhea
be correct, We might as well say that con
signments OF lard should be prohibited O.
the ground that no lard shall be offere
for sale or public use unless the same b
prepared from hogs which have been in
spected on the hoof Why not exclud
all shipments of butter on the groun
5 that the COW which gave the milk tbs
produced the cream, from which tn
butter was made, was not inspected o
4 the hoof. Why not attempt to prohib
: the sale OF pate dc foie gras and encoul
, age the raising OF geese in New Mexico
by extending the principle laid down b
: this distinguished jurist?
s AS the learned Mr.. Justice Matthew
, says: Upon this theory the power
regulate commerce, instead o.. being par,
! mount over the subject, would becom
! subordinate to the state police powe,
! for it is obvious that the power to dete
1 mine the articles, which may be subject
of commerce, and thus to circumscrit
s its scope and operation, is, in effect, tt
e controlling one"
We think the legislature has owe
S reached itself, and in attempting to wor
0 harm to others, who, under the constit
t ton, are guaranteed the rights they no
8 claim, has only brought an addition
e burden upon our cattle industry, whic
time will show to be indeed very onerou
Respectfully, r. Z. TwIrcHELL.