776 ANNUAL RETORTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



required in (he regulations of the Bureau of Animal Industry in the case of cattle for 

 export. In conclusion, the court held the charge that the cattle did not have proper 

 space and opportunity to rest was established. 



United States v. Northern Pacific Terminal Co. 



(Circular No. 53, OCQce of the Solicitor; not reported In the Federal Reporter] 



In this case counsel for the defendant contended that, as the statutory limit had 

 expired when the stock were received by the defendant, and as recovery had been had 

 against the initial carrier on the same shipment, no cause of action could be maintained 

 :\gainst the defendant. The court hela that a terminal company is not excusable 

 because it accepted and txansported stock for a humane purpose, that the purpose of 

 the act is better served if connecting carriers refuse to accept stock on which the 

 time limit had expired. It was held no defense, in an action against a connecting 

 carrier, to say that the initial carrier which had itself violated the law on the tame 

 phipment, had been fined therefor. 



The most important decision handed down in the past fiscal year 

 in any case arising under the act was the opinion of the Supreme 

 Court, speaking tlirougli A^Ir. Justice Lamar, in Baltimore & Ohio 

 Southwestern Railroad Co. v. United States (see Circular No. 46, 

 Office of the Sohcitor, supra; 220 U. S., 94). The question as to the 

 unit of violation under the statute, decided in this opinion, was raised 

 at an early date, and the position of the Government that the con- 

 signment was the unit, and that of the common carriers that the train- 

 load was the unit, were at once assumed. The opinion of the Supreme 

 Court takes a middle ground and makes the number of penalties de- 

 pendent upon the number of times a carrier fails to comply with the 

 statutory duty to unload, whether the particular group of animals not 

 unloaded be one shipment, or more, or a trainload of stock. The opin- 

 ion of the Supreme Court is particularly noteworthy because the decis- 

 ion of the circuit court of appeals, when the case was before that bench, 

 has been cited with approval or adopted in the following cases in 

 other districts: Southern Pacific Co. v. United States, 171 Fed., 360 

 (C. C. A.) ; United States v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis R. Co., 

 168 Fed., 699; United States v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co., 

 166 Fed., 160; United States v. New York Central & Hudson River R. 

 Co., 165 Fed., 833 (C. C. A.); United States v. Oregon Railway & 

 Navigation Co., 163 Fed., 642; United States v. Southern Pacific 

 Co., 157 Fed., 459. Some difficulty has been experienced in applying 

 the rule announced in the decision. It is said in the opinion that 

 "the loading of numerous cars might proceed concurrently; or if not 

 discontinuous or unduly prolonged, several cars of cattle of the same 

 consignor might be loaded at the same time within the meaning of. 

 the act, in which event the period of their lawful confinement on the 

 same train would end at the same time and place." The establish- 

 ment of a definite rule, determining when unloading is discontinuous 

 or unduly prolonged, will have to be worked out through the accu- 

 mulation of decisions in concrete cases, requiring the application of 

 the principle in the opinion of the Supreme Court. 



United States v. St. Louis National Stock Yards Co., involving the 

 liability of a terminal company, in general, under the act, was not 

 argued last term before the Supreme Court, as had been anticipated, 

 but was set for hearing October 10, 1911. Apart from the proposi- 

 tion of law in tlfis case, which the Government believes should be 

 resolved in its favor, the establishment of the liability of terminal 

 companies un ler the statute will be of considerable value in the 

 enforcement of the act, not merely in the case of other companies of 



