The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-03-15
KANSAS LAWS SUSTAINED,
Fever Infected Cattle Can Not Be
Transported Between States.
THE OPINION OF JUSTICE HARLAN.
Acts Are Not Contrary to the Conrti.
tuition Nor Conflicting with
/, the Interstate Commerce..

1 i : .
washington. March 14.--ln the Unite,
states supreme court today en- opinIo,
vas handed down by Juetice Harlan in IN,
case of the Missouri, Kansas and Texa.
Railway Company VS.. Charles Haber. III.
nrming the constitutionslity and validity q
the State laws OF Kansas prohibiting the
transportation into the State of cattle al.
fccted with Texas fever, and providing for
a civil action for damages in case of ,he
injection. These laws were attacked nm
the ground that they were repusnant 10
the constitution of the United States and
also on the ground that domestic cattle
were su1nciently protected by Federal laws
ana by the regulations OF the AGRICULTURAL
department under the act OF the bureau OF
animal industry. Referring to this latter
contention Justice Harlan said:
me act OF congress did not assume to
give any corporation, company or person
the affirmative right to transport from one
state to anothsr cattle that were liable 10
lmflart or capable OF communicating con-
usslous or communicable diseases. ON the
contrary 1t was made, by the animal in
dustry act, misdemeanor to deliver for
transportation or to transport or drive from
one state TO another cattle known to be
aifected with contagious, infectious or COM
municatiye disease. Whether a corpoia-
ton transporting or the persons causing
them TO be transported from one State to
another, cattle of the class specified in
the Kansas statute. is liable In civil
action for such damages as may be Gus
tanned by the owners of domestic cattle
by reason of the introduction into their
State of such diseased cattle, is subject
about which the animal industry act did
not assume TO make any provision. The
act does not declare that the regulations
established by the commissioner of agri-
culture should have the effect to exempt
from civil liability any one who. but for
such regulations, would have been liable
either under the general principles of law
or under some State enactment, for dam
ages arising out OF the introduction into
State OF cattle SO affected And, as Will
be seen from the regulations prescribed
by the secretary of agriculture that that
officer did not assume to give protection
to any one against such liability"
1t was also asserted that local statute
was inconsistent with the interstate COM
meroe law. On this Justice Harlan said:
The statute of Kansas is not, within
the meaning of the constitution nor in
any sense, a regulation OF commerce among
the States. IT can not be supposed to have
been so intended even If its validity were
to depend upon the intent with which IL
was enacted. 1t did nothing more than
declare as a rule of civil liability that any
one driving, shipping or transporting or
causing to be driven. shipped or transport
ed into or through any county in that
State. cattle capable of communicating
Texas splenetic or Spanish fever to domes- |
tic cattle should be liable In damages to |
any persons injured thereby. 1t was
passed In execution of power TO pro-
tect the people in the enjoyment OF their |
rights of property and TO provide for the |
redress of wrongs within its limits"
He also laid down the more general prin-
,iple that even IL the subject of such regu-
ation az was made by the State under thisH
law he one that may be taken under the
exclusive control of congress and be |
reached by National legislation, any action
aiken by the State that does not directly |
interfere with rights secured by the con-
;titution of the United States or by act |
u congress, must be respected until con-
gress intervenes.