Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1901-10-16
THE HIDE INSPECTION
LAW Is VALID
A Review of the Learned Opinion Handed
Down by Judge John R. McPie in This
Very Important Matter.
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DISMISSED


1t upholds the validity of Chapter XIV
of the Session Laws of 1901, an act re-
lating to the peddling Of meats and
for other purposes, Sections 3 and of
which provide for the Inspection in the
district in which they originate and the
tagging of all hides shipped out of the
| territory by common carrier, the in
spection fee for which shall be ten
cents hide.
E. J. Mclean & Co. had taken two
, bundles of uninspected and untagged
hides to the depot of the Denver & Rio
Grande railroad depot at Santa Fe, had
offered them for shipment to Denver
and had taken a shipping receipt for
the same. e. J. Mclean & Co. were
notified later that the railroad COM
pany refused to carry the hides to their
destination out of the territory, be-
cause they had not been inspected and
tagged as provided by law. Thereup-
on e. J. Mclean petitioned the dis
trict court for Santa Fe county for
peremptory writ Of mandamus to
compel the Denver & Rio Grande Rail-
road company to carry the uninspected
and untagged hides, setting up the
contention that clauses and 4, relat-
ing to the inspection of hides, of Chap
ter As, of the Session Laws of 1901, Is
invalid. Twenty-six points were urged
as reasons for deeming the act invalid,
chief among which were that the in
spection fee of ten cents per hide is
excessive, being more than the neces-
sary cost of such inspection; that it is
impracticable to distinguish between
hides from New Mexico and those
from other commonwealths and 1T is
therefore impracticable to have all
hides inspected by New Mexico inspec-
| tors in the district in which they origi-
nate, as Mclean & Co. ship hides into
| the territory for storage at New Mexi-
co points from which they are reshipp-
ed to other commemorative; that the
act Disseminated against common car
riers by not applying to other meth
DDS of taking hides out of the terri
tory; and that the act is in violation OF
| the Interstate Commerce act.
Judge McFie in typewriter opin-
ion of rs pages thoroughly analyses
and refutes these contentious, basing
his opinion mostly upon decisions OF
and opinions by the United States su-
preme court and upholds the validity
| ot Jic,,,i iccn ha nnfitinr
for a peremptory writ of mandamus.
| Judge McFie among other things says
"The claim that the hides were OBJ
| tanned beyond the boundaries of the
territory is Of no consequence under
the circumstances Of this case, mas
much as it is not claimed by the rela-
| tors to be fact that any of the hides
sought to be shipped came from the
territory Of Arizona or any Other
commonwealth. All of the hides ten
dered to the common carrier must be
presumed to be property originating IL
the territory. But the inspection Law
under consideration seems to be limit
ed to property originating within thu
territory of New Mexico. 1t is fair tt
presume that hides originated in th'
district where foundG The provision
that the hides should be inspected b.
an inspector of the district in whicl
the hides originated, certainly does no
apply to hides purchased outside o
New Mexico, so long, at least, as tn
same are kept separate from thos
originating in New Mexico.
1.-THE inspection fee is not excessiv
as it is paid into the cattle indemnit
fund and is used in payment of tn
expense of meeting the inspection sys
/ tenn provided by law, and it Is to b
presumed, that the funds thus collect
ed are not diverted to any other pu1
pose than for that for which the cat
tie sanitary board was organized
subserve" Incidentally it is mention
ed that the inspection fee of % cent
per hide exacted in Arizona, has bee
sustained by the courts.
; In respect to the claim that the &C
is in violation Of the Interstate Com
merce act, Judge McFie says: "Suc
goods do not cease to be a part OF tn
, general mass of the property of tn
! state, subject, as such. to its jurisdit
ton, and to taxation in the usual wa.
until they have been shipped, or er
, tered with a common carrier for tran:
. portation to another state or have bee
+; started upon such transportation in
continuous route or journey"
c AS to the law being operative onl
/, against common carriers, Judge McF
B says: ut is well known that such hid
are not transported out of the territoI
by other means. A failure to enfor'
: such a. law might result in incalculab
!. Injury to the stock industry of the te
8 ritory. All persons engaged in Il
d transportation, foreign or intersta
J, commerce, are treated precisely alike
); 1t is also pointed out that it was II
: tended that hides be inspected ar
tagged in the place where they orig
nate and that the fee be paideby Il
;, owner of the animal from which Il
a hide is taken. this to be a matter
}. protection against thieves, etc.
0 In conclusion Judge McFie say
Summing up this whole case, I am
the opinion that the inspection laws
New Mexico must be sustained up'
A. c,,%Iorl<x, ~ <ho o,vnrov,no cO,,rt