780 ANNUAL REPORTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



nnd examined by inspectors of the Bureau of Animal Industry at 

 those shiughterino; centers, in most cases at a ereat distance from the 

 points of oripin of t]ie shipments, are in the hands of connecting or 

 terminal rnilroads which lie wliolly without the quarantined areas 

 anil genorally after tlie shij)ments had been transported by one or 

 more intermediate connecting carriers. 



The question of the liability under the act of a railroad company 

 wliicli receives from a connecting carrier and transports live stock 

 wholly outside of tlie quarantined area was raised by a demurrer inter- 

 posed by the defendant in a case, United States v. Southern Railway 

 Co. (referred to in the table as No. 192), in the district of South Caro- 

 lina. 'Iho court, overruling the demurrer, held that where cattle are 

 transported as a through shipment over two or more connecting rail- 

 roads from an area of a State quarantined by the Secretary of Agri- 

 culture into another State each carrier participating in the trans- 

 portation of such shipment is liable under tlie act. 



On the other hand, in the similar case, United States v. Richmond, 

 Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad Co., prosecuted in the eastern 

 district of Virginia, the court sustained a demurrer interposed by the 

 defendant, involving the identical question, on the ground that no 

 prosecution lies against connecting carriers which receive and trans- 

 port such sliipments wholly outsicle of a quarantined State. 



The same question — the liability under the act of a railroad com- 

 pany wliich receives from connecting carriers and transports live 

 stock wholly outside of the quarantined area — was the ground of an 

 unsuccessful motion in arrest of judgment in the case of United States 

 V. St. Louis Merchants Bridge Terminal Railway, charging 5 viola- 

 tions of t'.ie act (referred to in the table as Nos. 87, 88, 89, 93, and 94), 

 which was tried in the eastern district of Missouri in December, 1909. 

 A writ of error in the case issuing to the circuit court of appeals for 

 the eighth circuit, that court reversed the judgment of the district 

 court, and in an opinion rendered at the May term, 1911, held that 

 the receipt outside of a quarantined district and subsequent trans- 

 portation by a railroad company of live stock that was received 

 for transportation and was transported by a previous carrier from a 

 quarantined district in one State into another State is not an offense 

 under the act. 



Tliis important and mooted question, however, is now before the 

 United States Supreme Court in the case United States v. Baltimore & 

 Ohio Southwestern Railroad Co. In this case an indictment was 

 returned against the defendant railroad company in the southern dis- 

 trict of Ohio charging alleged violations of the act of March 3, 1905 

 (see cases Nos. 281, 282, and 289 in the table), in receiving in the 

 State of Ohio from connecting railroads and transporting, without 

 compUance with the regulations made under the act, shipments of 

 sheep originating in the State of Kentucky, quarantined under the 

 act for scabies in sheep. The indictment was quashed by the court 

 on its own motion, holding that the defendant could not be held to 

 answer the charge, because the indictment showed that the defendant 

 had not received the shipment of sheep in question in the quaran- 

 tined State of Kentucky and had not transported the same from said 

 quarantined State, but had received said shipments of sheep at a 

 place, and had transported the same through places, wholly and en- 

 tirely without the quarantined State of Kentucky; and that such 

 facts did not constitute a violation of the act in question. Exception 



