Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1932-07-21
CATTLE TEST
LAW UPHELD
State Supreme Court Holds
That 1881 Amendment
is Constitutional.
Case Started Year Ago in
District Court, Passed
to Higher Court.

10 higher NOuIl.
The state supreme court upheld in
its decision Friday the constitution
atty of the cattle tuberculin test law
the socalled area test. An amend
ment to the law of 1923 was passed
in the 1881 session of the Legislature
and it was this amendment that was
questioned.
Under the cattle tuberculin test
law of 1923 two-thirds of the counties
of Minnesota had had the area test
or become accredited. The law then
provided that if more than fifty per
cent of the cattle owners of county
petitiOned for the area test the
county commissioners were authorized
to enter into an agreement with the
State Livestock Sanitary Board for
the test.
1t was found that in a few counties
regardless of what percentage of cat
tie owners petitiOned for it the COM
missioners still turned it down so
an amendment to the law was passed
in the 1881 session of the legislature.
This amendment provided that where
more than fifty per cent of the cattle
owners had petitioned for the area
test and the request was turned down
by the county board then upon an
other petition of 100 cattle owners
it became mandatory on the part of
the county board to arrange for the
test. In other words the 100 petit
TONERS would in some cases have the
same power as one member on the
county board. After receiving petit
tions for the test from over fifty per
cent of the cattle owners the county
board might turn down the proposition
with two commissioners voting for it
and three against. Then the additional
petition of 100 cattle owners would
reverse the effect of one county COM
missioner voting against the propo-
sition. 1t was this amendment that
was passed in the 1881 legislature
and which was questioned in court.
The original tuberculin cattle test
law of nine years ago and under
which two-thirds of the counties of
the state became accredited had the
sanction of both the senator and rep
resentative from Pine county in the
1923 session-both voting for it. The
amendment to the law passed in the
1881 session which gave more power
to the petitioners passed the Senate
unanimously and Pine county's repre-
sentative voted for it in the House
where the measure carried IS to 33.
Pine County Tested Law.
The decision of the state supreme
court was handed down in the case
brought from Pine county, where the
county board of commissioners re-
fused to appropriate money for cat
tie test, although a majority of the
county's cattle owners had petitioned
for it. Attorney General Henry N.
Benson in July, 1881, brought action
to force Pine county to undertake the
test, on behalf of the Minnesota Live
stock Sanitary board and DR.. c. E.
Cotton, it's executive secretary.
The Pine county commissioners, in
declining to order the test, commended
through County Attorney M. B. Hurley
that the title of the law as amended
trary to the state constitution, and
therefore was unconstitutional. The
supreme court now has rejected that
contention and established the au-
thority of Minnesota to require it's
counties to provide cattle tests on
petition of over fifty per cent of the
cattle owners. And in case of being
turned down by the commissioners
then another petition by 100 cattle
owners in addition to the fifty per
cent or more will bring about the
test.
Two.Thirds Petition in Pine County.
After the required number of sigma
lures of cattle owners had been pre-
scented to the county commissioners of
Pine county-68 per cent Of the cattle
owners petitioned for it here-and the
county board turned it down three to
two, then another petition of 112
signers for the area test was present.
ed to the county board. Laying the
matter on the table the case naturally
went to court.
The cost of the area test for Pine
county was estimated to be between
$4,000 and $4,000, and while the test
is desired by many as was indicated
in the large number of petitioners, it
is also desired to avoid the public ex-
pense at this time, to have it delayed,
SO Al of the 112 signers on the last
petition withdrew their names last
fall. This may have the effect of
delaying the test at this time.
The expense Of the original area
test is borne by each individual coun-
ty and after being accredited the state
and national government bears the
expense Of further testing. There are