THE SOLICITOR. 863 



a review of this decision under the criminal appeals act of March 2, 

 1907 (34 Stat., 1246), inasmuch as the provisions of that act apply- 

 only to proceedings by indictment, and prosecution in the cases in 

 question was by information. The United States attorney, however, 

 has been instructed to bring another case by indictment, and in the 

 event of a decision adverse to the Government, to sue out a vrr'it of 

 error, and, if possible, secure a reversal of such holding of the district 

 court. 



In a case brought in the eastern district of Missouri, against the 

 St. Louis Merchants Bridge Terminal Railway, embracing five vio- 

 lations of the act of March 3, 1905 (referred to in the foregoing 

 table as Nos. 87, 88, 89, 93, and 94), a verdict of guilty was returned 

 in each count, and fines aggregating $1,000 and costs were imposed. 

 After an unsuccessful motion in arrest of judgment, a writ of error 

 issued to the defendant corporation, and the cause was argued before 

 the United States circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit on 

 May 23, 1910. The principal points upon which the defendant based 

 its contention are (1) that the provisions of the act apply only to 

 carriers doing business in or through a quarantined area, and not to 

 terminal railroads operating wholly outside of a quarantined State 

 or district and receiving from connecting carriers and transporting 

 live stock originating in a quarantined area, and (2) that the act is 

 unconstitutional in that it attempts to delegate legislative power to 

 an executive ollicer. The decision of the court of appeals has not aa 

 yet been rendered. 



In a case under the act of March 3, 1905, prosecuted in the western 

 district of Texas, the defendant, the El Paso and Northeastern 

 Railroad Company, was charged with transporting, without compli- 

 ance with the regulations authorized by the act, two head of cattle 

 originating in a quarantined portion of the State of Oklahoma and 

 destined to El Paso, Tex. The shipment was received at the point 

 of origin by a connecting carrier and transported by it to a point in 

 New Mexico, where it was received by the defendant railroad and by 

 it transported thence to destination. A demurrer to the indictment 

 was interposed assigning several grounds for objection. The court, 

 sustaining the demurrer, in a brief statement of its conclusions held 

 (1) that the initial carrier receiving and transporting the shipment, 

 and not the defendant railroad, was punishable under the act, since 

 the latter did not transport from a quarantined district cattle destined 

 to another State or Territory, and (2) that the indictment was defect- 

 ive in that it did not sufliciently allege the written or printed notice 

 of the regluations by the Secretary of Agriculture to the proper 

 officers of the defendant railroad company, required by the act, and 

 (3) in that it failed to disclose that the Secretary of Agriculture had 

 pu4)lished the notice of the establishment of a quarantined district, 

 required by the act (U. S. v. El Paso and N. E. R. Co., 178 Fed., 846). 



Anotlier indictment, amended as to the three objections last named, 

 was not brought, inasmuch as the identical question raised in the 

 first objection is involved in the case against the St. Louis Merchants 

 Bridge Terminal Railway, discussed above. 



During the fiscal year 21 orders of the Secretary of Agriculture, 

 made and promulgated under the authority of the act of March 3, 

 1905, definmg areas quarantined for contagious, infectious, and com- 



