The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1898-03-15
KANSAS IAN UPHELD
Supreme Court SuStainS the
Anti-TexaS Fever Act.
SHIPPERS-IN ARE LIABLE
Interstate Commerce Law Not
Contravened.

Washington. March H-In the United
States supreme court today an opinion
was handed down by Justice Halan in the
case of the Missouri. Kansas and Texas
Railway company VS.. Charles Haber. al
hrming the constitutionaliIy and validity
of the state laws OF Kansas prohibiting
the transportation into the state of cattle
affected with Texas fever and providing
for civil action for damages in case Of
the infracton OF law.
These laws were attacked on the ground
that they were repugnant 10 the constl-
tuition of the United States. and also on
the ground that domestic cattle were suf-
fciently protected by federal laws and by
regulations of the agricultural department
under the act establishing the bureau OF
animal industry. Referring to this latter
contention Justice Harlan said:
The act of congress did not assume4to
give any corporation, company or person
the affirmative right to transport from
one state TO another state cattle that were
liable 10 impart or capable OF communi-
eating contagious, infectious or communi-
cable diseases. On the controry, it was
made by the animal industry act a INSIDE
meanor TO deliver for transportation or
to transport or drive from one state 20
another cattle known to be affected with
contagious, infectious or communicable
diseases Whether a corporation trans
porting or the person causing 10 be trans
ported, from one state to another. cattle
Of the class specified in the Kansas sta
tute, is liable in a civil action for such
damages as may be sustained by the own
ers of domestic cattle by reason OF the
introduction into their state of such dis
eased cattle, is a subject about which the
animal industry act did not assume 20
make any provision. That act does not be-
clare that the regulations established by
the commissioner of agriculture should
have the effect TO exempt from civil la
bility one who, but for such regulations.
would have been liable, either under the
general principles of law. or under some
state enactment, for damages arising out
of the Introduction into state OF cattle
so affected. And, as will be seen from
the regulations prescribed by the secTe-
tary of agriculture. that officer did not
assume TO give protection 10 any one
against such liability"
1t was also asserted that the local sta
tute was Inconsistent with the interstate
commerce law. On this Justice Harlan
said:
THE statute of Kansas Is not. within
the meaning Of the constitution. nor IN
any just sense, a regulation OF commerce
among the states II cannot be supposed
to nave been so intended, even II its va
lidfty were to depend upon the intent
with which II was enacted. II did nothing
more than declare as a rule OF civil liabil-
ity that any one driving. shipping or trans
porting or causing 10 be driven. shipped
OF transported into or through any county
in that state, cattle capable Of communi-
eating Texas, spleneuc or Spanish fever
to domestic cattle, should be liable In
damages 10 any persons injured thereby.
1t was passed in execution Of a power 20
protect the people In the enjoyment Of
their rights Of property and to provide for
the redress Of wrongs within It's limits"
He also laid down the more general
principle that even II the subject OF such
regulations as were made by the state
under this law. "be one that may be taken
under exclusive control Of congress and
be reached by national legislation, any &C
ton taken by the state that does not a.
rectly interfere with rights secured by the
constitution Of the United States or ley
some valid act Of congress must be re-
spected until congress interviews"