THE SOLICITOB. 921 



In this case an indictment had been returned against the Baltimore 

 & Ohio Southwestern Raih-oad Co. in the Southern District of Ohio 

 charging violations of section 2 of the act of March 3, 1905 (see cases 

 Nos. 281, 282, and 288 in the appended table), in receiving in the 

 State of Oliio from connecting railroads and transporting, without 

 compliance with the regulations made under the act, shipments of 

 sheep originating in the State of Kentucky, quarantined under the 

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

 on its own motion holding that the defendant railroad company could 

 not be held to answer the charge, because the indictment snowed that 

 although the shipment originated in the quarantined area the 

 defendant had not received the shipments of sheep in question in a 

 quarantined State or transported them from a quarantined State, 

 but had received and transported the sheep through places, whoUy 

 without the quarantined State of Kentucky. Exception was there- 

 upon taken by the United States attorney to the ruling and judgment 

 of the court and the case was taken to the United States Supreme 

 Court on vrrit of error. The case was argued and decided at the 

 October term, 1911, and the judgment of the district court was 

 affirmed. 



The same question was raised as early as December, 1909, in the 

 case under the act of March 3, 1905, of the United States v. St. Louis 

 Merchants Bridge Terminal Ry. (188 Fed., 191); United States v. 

 El Paso & Northeastern R. R. (178 Fed., 846) ; United States v. Chi- 

 cago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. (181 Fed., 882) ; and United States 

 V. Southern Railway Co. (187 Fed., 209). In the first three of which 

 cases the same construction was giv^en to the statute as was subse- 

 quently given in the decision of the Supreme Court, while in the last 

 case mentioned a contrary ruHng was made. 



Of the cases under the act of March 3, 1905, pending or determined 

 in the courts during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1911, 107 were 

 reported to the Attorney General in the course of the year, while 196, 

 including the large number above mentioned as dismissed pursuant to 

 the decision of the Supreme Court, had been reported to the Attorney 

 General during previous fiscal years. 



The status or disposition of proceedings in cases under the act of 

 March 3, 1905, and the act of May 29, 1884, is indicated in detail in 

 the tables on J)age 994. 



In a number of instances alleged violations of the acts of March 3, 

 1905, and May 29, 1884, referred to the Sohcitor by the Bureau of 

 Animal Industry, have been returned with requests for further inves- 

 tigation or evidence, and in a few instances with the opinion that no 

 prosecution could be instituted. 



Several orders of the Secretary of Agriculture estabhshing or chang- 

 ing quarantines under section 1 of the act of March 3, 1905, were 

 examined in the course of the fiscal year as to their legal form and 

 sufficiency. 



THE MEAT-INSPECTION AMENDMENT. 



During the fiscal year 1012 there wore reported to the Attorney 

 General 85 violations of the meat-ias})ection amendment of June 30, 

 1906 (34 Stat., 674), wliil(> during the fiscal year 1911, 101 such viola- 

 tions were similarly re])ortetl, making a decrease of 16 violations in 

 1912. Of the 85 cases reported during the year, together with those 



