association, or corporation to bring or ant said "that the state board of sanitary drive, or cause to be brought or driven, into inspection, through one of their inspectors, this state, between the first day of April | had inspected the cattle against his will and and the first day of November, any cattle or desire, but that he had not obtained from horses from a state, territory, or county, the board any certificate or bill of health south of the 36th parallel of north latitude, whatsoever. But he said that he immediunless said cattle or horses have been held ately theretofore had had the cattle inat some place north of the said parallel of spected by a duly authorized inspector of latitude for a period of at least ninety days the Bureau of Animal Industry of the prior to their importation into this state, or United States, at Hereford, in the state of unless the person, association, or corpora- Texas, and had obtained a certificate from tion owning or having charge of such cattle him to the effect that the same were free or horses shall procure from the state veteri- from any infectious or contagious disease; nary sanitary board a certificate, or bill of that the reason he could not get a certifi health, to the effect that said cattle or cate or bill of health from the state board horses are free from all infectious or con- of Colorado was because he would not pay tagious diseases, and have not been exposed, the expense of such inspection, and because at any time within ninety days prior there- he had opposed such inspection as unnecesto, to any of said diseases. The expense of sary and without any warrant in law." any inspection connected herewith to be paid by the owner or owners of such cattle or horses.

"S3. Any person violating the provision | of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred (500) dollars, nor more than five thousand (5,000) dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for a term of not less than six months, and not exceeding three years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

When refusing his assent to the state inspection, Reid showed to the state authorities what he called a "United States certificate."

The certificate was signed by "Arthur C. Hart, Ass't Inspector, Bureau of Animal Industry." That officer certified that he had carefully inspected the cattle in ques-tion at Hereford, Texas, and found them "free from Texas or splenetic fever* infection (boophilus bovis), or any other infectious or contagious disease," and that "no Texas fever infection is known to exist where they have been kept or on the trail

signature of the assistant inspector was the following unsigned printed memorandum: "Animals which have been inspected and certified by an inspector of the U. S. Bureau of Animal Industry, and are free from disease, have the right to go into any state and be sold for any purpose, without further inspection or the exaction of fees."

"§ 4. If any person, association, or corporation shall bring, or cause to be brought, into this state, any cattle or horses, in vio-over which they have passed." Below the lation of the provisions of sections 1 or 2 of this act, or shall, by false representation, procure a certificate of health, as provided for in section 2 of this act, he or they shall be liable, in all cases, for all damages sustained on account of disease communicated by or from said cattle or horses; judgment for damages in any such case, together with the costs of action, shall be a lien upon all The above, together with certain pubsuch cattle and horses, and a writ of at-lished regulations prepared and issued by tachment may issue in the first instance the Bureau of Animal Industry, was all the without the giving of a bond, and the count evidence in the case. rendering such judgment may order the sale of said cattle or horses, or so many thereof as may be necessary to satisfy said judg ments and costs. Such sale shall be conducted as other sales under execution." Colo. Sess. Laws 1885, p. 335.

There was no proof in the case that the particular cattle in question had any dangerous, infectious, or contagious disease. But it did appear that after being kept a long while in Lubbock and Cochran counties, Texas, south of the 36th parallel of north latitude, these cattle were shipped on the 20th day of June, 1901, to Denver, Colorado, on their way to their ultimate destination in Wyoming, without being first insnected as required by the statute of the former state. The provisions of the Colorado statute were ignored altogether as invalid legislation. Being asked by one of the witnesses whether he had or not allowed the state board of sanitary inspection to inspect the cattle or whether or not he had procured from the state veterinary sanitary board a certificate or bill of health to the effect that the cattle were free from all infectious or contagious diseases, the defend

The defendant asked the court to instruct the jury:

That it was unnecessary for the defendant to procure from the Colorado veterinary sanitary board a certificate or bill of health to the effect that his cattle were free from infectious or contagious diseases, and had not been exposed at any time within ninety days prior thereto, to any of said diseases, for the reason that the cattle had previous ly been inspected, "according to the statute of the United States in such case made and provided, and according to the rules and regulations pursuant to said statute, promulgated by the Department of Agricul ture, by a duly authorized inspector of the Bureau of Animal Industry of the United States, stationed at Hereford, in the state of Texas, and had been duly certified by such United States inspector to be free from any infectious or contagious disease; and for the further reason that he, the said defendant, then and there exhibited and showed to the said state inspector of Colorado the said inspection certificate of the United States to said cattle;" and,

That the Colorado statute, approved

*140

By the 1st section the Commissioner of Agriculture is directed to organize in his department a Bureau of Animal Industry, to appoint a chief thereof, who shall be a competent veterinary surgeon, and whose duty

the condition of the domestic animals of the United States, their protection and use, and also inquire into and report the causes of contagious, infectious, and communicable diseases among them, and the means for the prevention and cure of the same, and to collect such information on these subjects as shall be valuable to the agricultural and commercial interests of the country." § 1 [U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 299].

March 21st, 1885, and under which defend- | pneumonia and Other Contagious Diseases ant was prosecuted, was repugnant to the among Domestic Animals." provision of the Constitution of the United States giving Congress power to regulate commerce among the states, as well as to the provision declaring that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the sev-it shall be "to investigate and report upon eral states, and was null and void, as imposing unnecessary and unlawful burdens and restrictions upon interstate commerce. The court refused to so instruct the jury, but instructed them that if they believed from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did, on or about the 20th day of June, 1901, that is, between the 1st day of April and the 1st day of November of that year, "unlawfully bring or drive, or cause to be brought or driven, into the state of Colorado, and into the county of Arapahoe, the cattle as mentioned in the information or any part thereof, from certain counties south of the 36th parallel, north latitude; and that said cattle had not been held theretofore at some place north of said parallel of latitude for a period of at least ninety days prior to the importation of said cattle into said state of Colorado; and that the said defendant had not procured from the state veterinary sanitary board of Colorado a certificate or bill of health, to the effect that said cattle were free from infectious or contagious diseases, and to the effect that the same had not been exposed at any time within ninety days prior thereto to any of said diseases; and that then and there the said defendant did refuse and decline to procure, or permit anyone for him to procure, such certificate or bill of health, and did refuse and decline to pay or allow, or suffer or permit anyone for him to pay, the expense of any inspection so as by the act prescribed,-then and in that event it is your duty to find the defendant guilty as charged in this information."

By the 2d section the Commissioner is authorized to appoint two competent agents, practical stock raisers or experienced business men familiar with questions pertaining to commercial transactions in live stock, whose duty it shall be, under the instructions of the Commissioner, "to examine and report upon the best methods of treating, transporting, and caring for animals, and the means to be adopted for the suppression and extirpation of contagious pleuro-pneumonia, and to provide against the spread of other dangerous contagious, infectious, and communicable diseases." 2 [U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 300].

The 3d section makes it "the duty of the Commissioner of Agriculture to prepare such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary for the speedy and effectual suppression and extirpation of said diseases, and to certify such rules and regulations to the executive authority of each state and territory, and invite said authorities to cooperate in the execution and enforcement of this act." And "whenever the plans and methods of the Commissioner of Agriculture shall be accepted by any state or territory The contention here of the defendant is in which pleuro-pneumonia or other contasubstantially that the subject of the trans-gious, infectious, or communicable disease is, portation of cattle from one state to an- declared to exist, or such state or territory" oher has been so far covered by the act of shall have adopted plans and methods for Congress known as the animal industry act the suppression and extirpation of said disof May 29th, 1884 (23 Stat. at L. 31, chap. eases, and such plans and methods shall be 60, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 299), that, accepted by the Commissioner of Agriculafter its passage, no enactment by the state ture, and whenever the governor of a state upon the same subject was permissible; and or other properly constituted authorities that, even in the absence of legislation by signify their readiness to co-operate for the Congress, the Colorado statute is invalid, extinction of any contagious, infectious, or in that, by its natural or necessary opera- communicable disease in conformity with the tion, it unreasonably obstructs that free provisions of this act, the Commissioner of dom of commerce among the states which Agriculture is hereby authorized to expend the Constitution established. These ques- so much of the money appropriated by this tions are recognized by the court as of great act as may be necessary in such investigaimportance, and have received its most care- tions, and in such disinfection and quaranful consideration. tine measures as may be necessary to preTaking up the first branch of the defend-vent the spread of the disease from one ant's contention, let us look at the control-state or territory into another." 3 [U. S. ling provisions of the above act of Congress, Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 300]. and ascertain whether that statute has the In order "to promote the exportation of scope and effect claimed for it.

The statute is entitled "An Act for the Establishment of a Bureau of Animal Industry, to Prevent the Exportation of Diseased Cattle, and to Provide Means for the Suppression and Extirpation of Pleuro

live stock from the United States," the Commissioner was directed to "make special investigation as to the existence of pleuro-pneumonia, or any contagious, infeetious, or communicable disease, along the dividing lines between the United States

*143

[U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3184.]

be

and foreign countries, and along the lines meanor, and, upon conviction, shall be punof transportation from all parts of the ished by a fine of not less than one hundred United States to ports from which live stock nor more than five thousand dollars, or by are exported, and make report of the re-imprisonment for not more than one year, sults of such investigation to the Secretary or by both such fine and imprisonment. of the Treasury, who shall, from time to time, establish such regulations concerning the exportation and transportation of live stock as the results of said investigations may require." (§ 4 [U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3183]); and that "to prevent the exportation from any port of the United States to any port in a foreign country of live stock affected with any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease, and espe cially pleuro-pneumonia," the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to take such steps and adopt such measures, not inconsistent with the provisions of the act, as he might deem necessary. § 5 [U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3183].

"§ 8. That whenever any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease affecting domestic animals, and especially the disease known as pleuro-pneumonia, shall brought into or shall break out in the District of Columbia, it shall be the duty of the commissioners of said District to take measures to suppress the same promptly and to prevent the same from spreading;; and for this purpose the said commission-, ers are hereby empowered to order and require that any premises, farm, or farms where such disease exists or has existed, be put in quarantine; to order all or any animals coming into the District to be detained at any place or places for the purpose of inspection and examination; to prescribe reg ulations for and to require the destruction of animals affected with contagious, infectious, or communicable disease, and for the proper disposition of their hides and carcasses; to prescribe regulations for disinfection, and such other regulations as they may deem necessary to prevent infection or contagion being communicated, and shall report to the Commissioner of Agriculture whatever they may do in pursuance of the provisions of this section. [U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3184.]

By another section of the act all railroad companies within the United States, or the owners or masters of any steam or sailing vessel or other vessel or boat, were forbidden to receive for transportation or transport from one state or territory to another, or from any state into the District of Columbia, or from the District into any state, "any live stock affected with any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease, and especially the disease known as pleuropneumonia; nor shall any person, company, or corporation deliver for such transporta tion to any railroad company, or master or owner of any boat or vessel, any live stock, knowing them to be affected with any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease; nor shall any person, company, or corporation drive on foot or transport in private conveyance from one state or territory to another, or from any state into the District of Columbia, or from the District into any state, any live stock, knowing them to be affected with any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease, and especially the disease known as pleuro-pneumonia: Provided, That the so-called splenetic or Texas It may be here stated that by the act of fever shall not be considered a contagious, February 9th, 1889, the Department of Aginfectious, or communicable disease within riculture was made one of the Executive the meaning of sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 of this Departments of the government, and placed act, as to cattle being transported by rail to under the supervision and control of a Secmarket for slaughter, when the same are un-retary of Agriculture (25 Stat. at L 659, loaded only to be fed and watered in lots on the way thereto." § 6 [U. S. Comp Stat. 1901, p. 3184].

Other provisions of the act are as follows:

" 9. That it shall be the duty of the several United States district attorneys to prosecute all violations of this act which shall be brought to their notice or knowledge by any person making the complaint under oath; and the same shall be heard before any district or circuit court of the United States or territorial court holden within the district in which the violation of this act has been committed." [U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3185.] 23 Stat. at L. 31, chap. 60 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 299).

chap. 122, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 285), and that by the act of July 14th, 1890, the Secretary was vested with all the authority which by the above act of May 29th, 1884, was conferred upon the Commissioner of Agriculture. 26 Stat. at L. 282, chap. 707.

"§ 7. That it shall be the duty of the Commissioner of Agriculture to notify, in It is quite true, as urged on behalf of the writing, the proper officials or agents of any defendant, that the transportation of live railroad, steamboat, or other transportation stock from state to state is a branch of incompany doing business in or through any terstate commerce, and that any specified infected locality, and by publication in such rule or regulation in respect of such transnewspapers as he may select, of the exist-portation, which Congress may lawfully ence of said contagion; and any person or prescribe or authorize, and which may proppersons operating any such railroad, or erly be deemed a regulation of such commaster or owner of any boat or vessel, or merce, is paramount throughout the Union. owner or custodian of or person having con- So that when the entire subject of the trol over such cattle or other live stock transportation of live stock from one state within such infected district, who shall to another is taken under direct national knowingly violate the provisions of section supervision, and a system devised by which 6 of this act, shall be guilty of a misde- diseased stock may be excluded from inter

eases.

state commerce, all local or state regula- | states to care for the safety of the property tions in respect of such matters and cover- of their peoples by such legislation as they ing the same ground will cease to have any deemed appropriate. It did not undertake force, whether formally abrogated or not; to invest any officer or agent of the Depart and such rules and regulations as Congress ment with authority to go into a state and may lawfully prescribe or authorize will without its assent take charge of the work alone control. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. of suppressing or extirpating contagious, 1, 210, 6 L. ed. 23, 73; Morgan's L. & T. R. infectious, or communicable diseases there & S. S. Co. v. Louisiana Bd. of Health, 118 prevailing, and which endangered the health U. S. 455, 464, 30 L. ed. 237, 241, 6 Sup. Ct. of domestic animals. Nor did Congress Rep. 1114; Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. give the Department authority by its offiS. 299, 317, 41 L. ed. 166, 173, 16 Sup. Ct. cers or agents to inspect cattle within the Rep. 1086; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. limits of a state, and give a certificate that New York, 165 U. S. 628, 631, 41 L. ed. should be of superior authority in that or 853, 854, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 418; Missouri, other states, or which should entitle the K. & T. R. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613, 626, owner to carry his cattle into or through 42 L. ed. 878, 882, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488; another state without reference to the reaRasmussen v. Idaho, 181 U. S. 198, 200, 45 sonable and valid regulations which the lat L. ed. 820, 821, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594. The ter state may have adopted for the protecpower which the states might thus exercise tion of its own domestic animals. It should may in this way be suspended until na- never be held that Congress intends to su tional control is abandoned and the subject persede, or by its legislation suspend, the be thereby left under the police power of the exercise of the police powers of the states, states. even when it may do so, unless its purpose But the difficulty with the defendant's to effect that result is clearly manifested. case is that Congress has not by any statute This court has said-and the principle has covered the whole subject of the transporta- been often reaffirmed that "in the application of live stock among the several states, tion of this principle of supremacy of an and, except in certain particulars not in- act of Congress in a case where the state volving the present issue, has left a wide law is but the exercise of a reserved power, field for the exercise by the states of their the repugnance or conflict should be direct power, by appropriate regulations, to pro-and positive, so that the two acts could not tect their domestic animals against conta- be reconciled or consistently stand togethgious, infectious, and communicable dis- er." Sinnott v. Davenport, 22 How. 227, 243, 16 L. ed. 243, 247. The certificate An examination of the animal industry given to the defendant by Assistant Inspect act will make this entirely clear. Three or Hart of the Bureau of Animal Industry distinct subjects are embraced by that act. was in itself without legal weight in ColoOne is the ascertainment through the Agri- rado. As said in Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. cultural Department of the condition of the v. Haber, above cited: "While the states domestic animals of the United States, the were invited to co-operate with the general causes of contagious, infectious, or com-government in the execution and enforcement municable diseases affecting them, the best of the act, whatever power they had to promethods for treating, transporting, and car-tect their domestic cattle against such dising for animals, the means to be adopted eases was left untouched and unimpaired by for the suppression and extirpation of such the act of Congress." Hence, it was decided diseases, particularly that of contagious in that case that the animal industry act pleuro-pneumonia, and to collect such information on those subjects as will be valuable to the agricultural and commercial interests of the country. Congress did not assume to declare that "the rules and regulations" which that Department might adopt as necessary "for the speedy and effectual suppression and extirpation of said diseases" should have in themselves, or apart from the action of a state, any binding force upon the states. They were to be certified to the executive authority of each state, and the co-operation of such authorities in executing the act of Congress invited. If the authorities of any state adopted the plans and methods devised by the Department, or if the state authorities adopted measures of their own which the Department approved, then the money appropriated by Congress could be used in conducting the required investigations, and in such disinfection and quarantine measures as might be necessary to prevent the spread of the diseases in question from one state or territory into another. Congress did not intend to override the power of the'

did not stand in the way of the state of Kansas enacting a statute declaring that any person driving, shipping, or transporting, or causing to be shipped, driven, or transported into or through that state, any cattle liable or capable of communicating Texas or splenetic fever to domestic cattle should be liable to the person injured thereby for all damages sustained by reason of the communication of said disease or fever, to be recovered in a civil action. We there held that the Kansas statute did nothing more than establish a rule of civil liability, in that state, affected no regulation of interstate commerce that Congress had prescribed or authorized, and impaired no right secured by the national Constitution.

Another subject embraced by the act of Congress related to the exportation from ports of the United States to ports in foreign countries of live stock affected with contagious, infectious, or communicable diseases, especially pleuro-pneumonia; and in relation to that matter the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to take such steps and adopt such measures, not inconsistent

•150

with the act of Congress, as he deemed necessary. As the present case is not one of the exportation of live stock to a foreign country, it is unnecessary to consider what power, if any, remained with the states, after the passage of the animal industry act, to suppress or extirpate diseases that in fact affected live stock, which it was the purpose of the owners to export.

and its constitutionality is not to be ques tioned unless it be in violation of the Constitution of the United States, independent ly of any legislation by Congress. The lat ter question we now proceed to examine.

Certain principles are well settled by the former decisions of this court. One is that the purpose of a statute, in whatever language it may be framed, must be determined by its natural and reasonable effect. Hen-* derson v. New York, 92 U. S. 259, 268, sub nom. Henderson v. Wickham, 23 L. ed. 543, its police regulations, whatever their object, unnecessarily burden foreign or interstate commerce. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Ilusen, 95 U. S. 465, 472, 24 L. ed. 527, 531. Again, the acknowledged police powers of a state cannot legitimately be exerted so as to defeat or impair a right secured by the national Constitution, any more than to defeat or impair a statute passed by Congress in pursuance of the powers granted to it. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 210, 6 L ed. 23, 73; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613, 625, 626, 42 L. ed. 878, 882,

Now, it is said that the defendant has a right under the Constitution of the United States to ship live stock from one state to another state. This will be conceded on all hands. But the defendant is not given by that instrument the right to introduce into

Still another subject covered by the act is the driving on foot or transporting from one state or territory into another state or territory, or from any state into the Dis-548. Another is, that a state may not, by trict of Columbia, or from the District into any state, of any live stock known to be affected with any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease. But this provision does not cover the entire subject of the transporting or shipping of diseased live stock from one state to another. The owner of such stock, when bringing them into another state, may not know them to be discased; but they may, in fact, be diseased, or the circumstances may be such as fairly to authorize the state into which they are about to be brought to take such precautionary measures as will reasonably guard 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488, and authorities cited. its own domestic animals against danger from contagious, infectious, or communicable diseases. The act of Congress left the state free to cover that field by such regulations as it deemed appropriate, and which only incidentally affected the freedom of interstate commerce. Congress went no a state, against its will, live stock affected farther than to make it an offense against by a contagious, infectious, or communica the United States for any one knowingly to ble disease, and whose presence in the state take or send from one state or territory to will or may be injurious to its domestic another state or territory, or into the Dis- animals. The state-Congress not having trict of Columbia, or from the District into assumed charge of the matter as involved in any state, live stock affected with infectious interstate commerce-may protect its peoor communicable disease. The animal in-ple and their property against such dangers, dustry act did not make it an offense taking care always that the means employed against the United States to send from one to that end do not go beyond the necessities state into another live stock which the ship- of the case or unreasonably burden the exerper did not know were diseased. The of- cise of privileges secured by the Constitufense charged upon the defendant in the tion of the United States. state court was not the introduction into Is the statute of Colorado liable to the Colorado of cattle that he knew to be dis- objection just stated? Can the courts hold eased. He was charged with having that upon its face it unreasonably obstructs brought his cattle into Colorado from cer- the exercise of the general right secured by tain counties in Texas, south of the 36th the Constitution to ship or send recognized parallel of north latitude, without said cat-articles of commerce from one state to antle having been held at some place north of other without interference by local authorsaid parallel of latitude for at least the ity? Those questions must be answered in time required prior to their being brought into Colorado, and without having procured from the state veterinary sanitary board a certificate or bill of health to the effect that his cattle, in fact, were free from all infectious or contagious diseases, and had not been exposed at any time within ninety days prior thereto to any such diseases, but had declined to procure such certificate or have the inspection required by the statute. His knowledge as to the actual condition of the cattle was of no consequence under the state enactment, or under the charge made. Our conclusion is that the statute of Colorado as here involved does not cover the same ground as the act of Congress, and therefore is not inconsistent with that act; 23 S. C.-7.

the negative. The Colorado statute, in effect, declares that live stock coming between the dates and from the territory specified are ordinarily in such condition that their presence in the state may be dangerous to its domestic animals; and hence the requirement that before being brought or sent into the state they shall either be kept at some place north of the 36th parallel of north latitude for at least ninety days prior to their importation into the state, or the ล owner must procure from the state veterinary sanitary board a certificate or bill of health that the cattle are free from all infectious or contagious diseases, and have not been exposed to any of said diseases at any time within ninety days prior thereto.