Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-02-19
Judge Stewart OF Idaho Renders
Decision Sweeping in
Extent.
MATTER OF DIPPING SHEEP,
Once Year, In the Spring, Sufficient,
Provided no More Disease A.
Found Among Them.

Boise. Ida, Feb. liza decision that
Is very sweeping In extent and one
which is OF vital Importance to the wool
grCNers of the state Of Idaho has been
rendered by Judge Stewart Of the dis
trio, court, Boise, In the case Of George
V. Leighton VS., Dr. g. L. Noble. state
veterinary surgeon,
The new state veterinary law, APP
proved March 6, 1905, created a state
livestock sanitary board, consisting If
seven members. one from each judicial
district IN the state, and a veterinary
surgeon, who was TO have jurisdiction
over all livestock OF the state, these To
be appointed by the governor Dr. G. f..
Noble was appointed veterinary sur
geon, and under the provisions OF the
law he ordered on the 18th Of September
last, all sheep in the state south Of the
Salmon river 10 be dipped, whether the
same were diseased or not. Against
This proclamation "a number Of sheep
men protested on the ground that their
sheep 'Sere not diseased and that thty
had already dipped IN the spring,
which was all the law required for
healthy sheep. Notable among these
protestants were the Butterheld Live
stock company Of Weiser and George "
leighton Of Boise.
QUESTIONS INVOLVED.
The questions involved were these
FIRST is the act in question. known as
the state veterinary law, approved
March 1905, constitutional?
Second Is section SS referred to in
said proclamation of Sept. ~. 1908, In
conflict with any provisions Of the STATE
and federal constitutions and Is the
same capable of enforcement
Third, does the fact that plaintiff :
sheep were dipped In May, 1905, as here
In set forth, relieve the plaintiff from
compliance with the procla NATION Is
sued by the defendant on Sept r. 1905 20
In disposing OF the questions the court
handled the second and third conjoint-
IT, holding in the first place, that It Is
In accord with the state and federal
constitutions TO require the dipping OF
sheep once each year and that this law
could be enforced, but where shoep ha 4
been properly dipped in the spring and
there was found during the remainder
of the year no disease among them.
there was nothing IN the law to in
force a redlpping, In this, the court
holds the state veterinarian acted
wholly without authority IN the issu-
ance of his proclamation of Sept. IL.
MOST IMPORTANT FEATURE.
Coming to the first question. the mos,
important one OF all the questions IN
volved IN the case which calls into
question the Constitutionalty of the
whole state sanitary law as passed by
the. last legislature, the court decided
that II was unconstitutional This on
: lf.s "a III Z
article OF the state constitution, which
reads
no act shall be revised or amended
by mere reference to its title. but tho
section as amended. shall be set forth
ana published at fun length"
Inc state veterinary law, section 80,
declares that said act was intended to
repeal those provisions Of the sheep IN
spector law OF 1901 which created the
Office OF sheep inspector and deputy
sheep insectors, but should not be con-
strued as repeating any other
provision Of said act not inconsistent
or In conflict With the privisions OF
this act, but these acts shall be con-
strued together for the purpose Of car
rying out the object sought by each OF
said acts, TO Wit The suppression
and eradication Of infectious and con-
this state. and the state veterinary sur
geon shall possess all the authority
granted the state sheep inspector un-
der said act etc.
AN ATTEMPT TO CHANGE.
The court held that section 50 was a
clear and palpable attempt to change,
modify and amend the state sheen in
spector law OF 1901 and this ATTEMPT
was made without setting forth the law
as amended or any section thereof but
that Il was done or attempted 10 be
done, by a mere reference to the title
Of the act Of 1901. II, therefore, came
clearly within the constitutional pro-
vision above referred TO- In passing
upon the question the court said that
II was its duty TO sustain the law IL II
entertained a doubt as to the constitu-
tiOnallty OF a question, but that the
court had searched in vain for any au-
thority which would sustain such an
attempt at legislation as was made In
the foregoing act While the courts of
some states hold that Il law may be
passed which covers a general sub
1ect, nevertheless, the court was I'M
able 10 find single decision which
held that the legislature could by dl-
rect reference by title TO . former act
amend and modify said act so thar the
entire law on the subject could be as.
certaintd, except by reading both acts
together. and do this without setting
forth the law I'm full as amended by
the latter act. II this were tolerated
then the constitutional provision above
referred to would be nullity and
meaningless.
ABOLITION or BOARD.
II this decision stands, It means the
abolition OF the state sanitary board
and the Office OF the state veterinarian,
and the restoration Of the state sheep
inspector law OF 1901 Under the old
law the governor has power TO op-
point state sheep inspector who will
be endowed with authority to enforce
the dipping Of diseased sheep, and this
as fully and completely as under tho
present law.
An appeal from Judge Stewards de-
cission, says Colonel John McBrney,
federal inspector, viii be taken to tho
supreme court.