Arizona republican., 1898-03-24
CATTLE QUARANTINE VALID.
The Constitutionality and Validity of
 the Kansas Law Affirmed.

In the United States supreme court last week an opinion was handed down by Justice Harlan in the case of the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Rail road company vs. Charles Haber, afr ming the constitutionality and validity of the state laws of Kansas prohibit ltlng the transportation into the state of cattle affiiced with Texas fever and providing for a civil action for dam ages in case of infraction of the law.
 These laws were attacked on the ground that they were repugnant to the constitution of the United States. and also on the ground that domestic cattle were sufficiently protected by federal laws and by regulations of the agricultural department under the act establishing the bureau of animal in dustry. Referring to this latter con- tention, Justice Harlan said:
 The act of congress did not assume to give any corporation, company or person the affirmative right to trans port from one state to another state cattle that were liable to impart or ca pablo of communicating contagious infectious, or communicable diseases. On the contrary, it was made by the
 
 deliver for transportation or to trans port or drive from one state to an other cattle known to be affected with contagious, infectious of communica- tive diseases
 Whether a corporation transport ing, or the person causing to be trans ported, from one state to another cat tie of the class specified in the Kan sas statute. is liable in a civil action for such damages as may be sustained by the owners of domestic cattle bv reason of the introduction into those states of diseased cattle. is a subject about which the animal industry act dld not assume to make any provision. The act does not declare that the reg ulations established by the commits sioner of agriculture should have the effect to exempt from civil liability one who, but for such regulations, would have been liable, either under the general principles of law or under some state enactmnt, for damages arising out of the introduction into state of cattle so affected. And, as will be seen from the regulations pre- scrlbed by the secretary of agriculture, that officer did not assume to give protection to any one against such lia- bility.'
 It was also asserted that the local statute was inconsistent with the in terstate commerce law. On this Jus tice Harlan said:
 "The statute of Kansas does not. within the meaning of the constitu- tlon nor in any just sense, a regula- tion Of commerce among the states It cannot be supposed to have been so Intended. even if it's validity were to depend upon the intent with which it was nacted. It did nothing more than declare, as a rule of civil liability. that any omre driving, shipping or trans portin, or causing to be driven. ship ped or transported, into or through i any county in that state, cattle capable 1 of communicating Texas, splenetic or i Spanish fever to domestic cattle should ! be liable in damages to any persons [ injured thereby. It was passed in execution of a power to protect the | people in the enjoyment of their rights of property and to provide for i the redress of wrongs within its linn | its''
 He also laid down the more general principle that. even if the subject o1 such regulations as were made by the state under this law ''be one that may be taken under the exclusive contro of congress and be reached by nation al legislation, any action taken by the
 states that does directly interfere
 with rights secured by the constitu
 tion of the United States or by some
 valid act of congress must be respected until congress intervenes"
 The railroad company also pleaded ' section 525S Of the revised statute which authorizes railroad companie 5 to transport troops, government sup 3 plies, mails, freights and propertie from one state to another, but the jus [. tice said that this statute did not au-