852 ANNUAL REPORTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



the issues involved, they estabhsh no precedent as to the hability of 

 stock yards or terminal conipanic's in ojeneral. Indeed, Jud^e Heed, 

 in the Sioux City Stock Yartls case, held that the defendant was 

 amenable, in general, to the act. 



A novel situation is presented in the Stock Yards Terminal case. 

 The Government had recovered from the initial carrier, and sought 

 to recover also from the connecting carrier, by which the same ship- 

 ment of live stock was further transported in violation of the act. 

 The lower court decided that the terminal company had not violated 

 the law, thus holding that the time during which the stock had been 

 conhned by the preceding carrier could not be counted against the 

 defendant. This decision disregards the plain provisions of the act. 

 No explanation is given as to the ground on which the decision is 

 based. The court did not even recognize the right of the Government 

 to sue either carrier, at its election, but held, in effect, that the 

 defendant had not violated the law because it did not confine the 

 stock on its own line over twenty-eight hours. It should be noted 

 that the circuit court of a})peals for the eighth circuit, while affirming 

 the court below, sought other ground of decision. There is now pend- 

 ing, before the same appellate court. United States v. Wabash Rail- 

 road Co., which involves the converse of the proposition in the Stock 

 Yards Terminal case. In that case the Government recovered, first, 

 from the terminal company for a confinement of stock on its own 

 line, of less than twenty-eight hours, the initial and connecting car- 

 rier having theretofore confined the same shipment in excess of the 

 statutor}" period. After recovering from the terminal company, 

 proceedings were instituted ag'ainst the initial carrier; under these 

 circumstances the lower court held that the Government could not 

 recover. Obviously, the torment of hunger, thirst, and weariness 

 increases after the statutory period expires; consequently, Congress 

 must have intended in this statute to prohibit carriers from accepting 

 stock for further transportation, when they had been already con- 

 fined in violation of the act, extending to live stock the humane pro- 

 tection demanded by their nature and the conditions of transit by 

 rail. The decision of the lower court in the Stock Yards Terminal 

 case seems to proceed on the theory that live stock in the course of 

 continuous transportation require feed, water, and rest only at the 

 end of twenty-eight hour periods, but, if not fed, watered, and rested 

 at the expiration of that time, they suffer no increasing detriment 

 until another twenty-eight hours has expired. 



In United States v. Stock3'ards Terminal Railroad Company (178 

 Fed., 19; Circular No. 33, Office of the Solicitor) the circuit court of 

 appeals for the eighth circuit applied the construction of the expres- 

 sion "knowingly and willfully," as laid down in St. Louis and San 

 Francisco Railroad Co. v. United States (169 Fed., 69, 71; Circular 

 No. 17, Office of the Solicitor). The court said, in effect, that the 

 defendant not having actual knowledge of how long the live stock 

 had been without water, feed, and rest when it accepted them, did 

 not knowingly and willfully violate the act. It is regrettable that 

 the court did not deem it necessary to discuss, in this connection, 

 the duty of connecting carriers; as the decision now stands, it might 

 be held to support the view that of connecting carriers none violate 

 the law except those having actual knowledge of the period of pre- 

 vious confinement. It was stipulated that it was the duty of railroad 

 agents to mark the billing, so as to show connecting carriers when 



