The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1901-10-25
UTAH SHEEPMEN
LOSE THEIR CASE
-A@
Judge Beatty at Boise Decides
Against Them.
INSPECTION LAW is UPHELD
DECISION IN HARMONY WITH
U. s. SUPREME COURT.
INSPECTION LAW is UPHELD
csneciaI TO The Herald.O


Boise. Ida, Oct 24-Judge Beatty
today decided the famous Idaho-Utah
sheep case against the Utah men. This
suit was entitled Jessie NJ. Smith ct al.
VS.. Thomas G. Lowe, Idaho state sheep
inspector. and others. The plaint'@s
sought an injunction to restrain the
inspector and his deputies from en-
forcing Governor Hunts quarantine
proclamation Judge Beatty issued a
limited restraining order, under which
the sheep might be brought in cOndi-
tiOnal upon their condition as to dis
ease. The demurrer interpOsed by the
/ defendants went to the merits OF the
case, and the decision in their favor
! disposes of it.
In his decision Judge Beatty sets
forth that the right OF citizens Of one
state to drive sheep into another is
admitted and it is also admitted that
he state in the exercise of its police
! power may establish quarantine regu-
( latiOns. The plaintiff claimed that un-
1 der the guise of quarantine the state
was virtually denying them their right
was virtually denying them their
rights under the interstate commerce
/ provision of the federal legislation
! Judge Beatty says the important
question in the case is who shall deter
mine when the state law and its en-
| fOrcement are made in good faith. He
! then proceeds to recite the conditions
I of the quarantine proclamation and the
steps taken under his temporary re-
straining order. AS to the inspection
conducted by Messrs. Lowe and Nc
/ Birney under the provisions of that
rider the judge says:
The result of their inspection was
that the sheep were found practically
/ free from disease and they were ad-
mitted. The simple facts in this case
are that the sheep were not so dis
eased as to justify their exclusion To
l have excluded them or to have even
encountered their admission by unnec-
essary regulations would not only be
] mistake, but also the denial of the
! sacred right which any citizen of the
government has of transporting his
( property wherever he will, regardless
I Of state lines"
Decision of Higher Court.
The judge then points out, however.
| that since the commencement of this
action the United States supreme
court has handed down two opinion,
which he must follow. One is the
4 Rasmussen case and the other the case
, of Smith VS. st. Louis 6, Southwestern
Railway company. Continuing, Judge
/ Beatty says:
These decisions do not say that a
federal court may not, in such cases,
entertain jurisdiction for the purpose
! of determining the good faith both of
the law and its enforcement, and while
/ in the one case it is said that such a
I law cannot be made a mask to shield
a violation of the interstate commerce
! constitutional provision in both, there
! an intimation that when the law
upon its face is one to prevent the
spread of diseases in the state, the
state officers may be relied upon to.
in good faith, enforce it, in justice to
{ all.
sAt any rate in the two cases the
| laws and their enforcement by state
/ officers were sustained. and such laws
and such enforcement thereof were
/ strong in exclusion of foreign stock as
/ is the law in the case under considera-
/ ton. 1t must follow. therefore that
/ this law may be enforced by the state
| officers; that the complaint does not
! state a cause of action, of which this
court may take jurisdiction and the
| demurrer therein is sustained