530 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE Off. Doc. 



APPENDIX TO REPORT OF STATE VETERINARIAN 



THE LIVESTOCK LAW. 



The Pennsylvania Act of Assembly approved July 22, 1913, P. L. 

 928, is generally recognized by persons interested in livestock sani- 

 tation as containing the most advanced measures and precautions 

 pertaining to this subject: It has served as a model for legislation 

 in several other states ; in fact has been adopted with practically no 

 changes, and has proved satisfactory to all persons who are broad 

 minded and genuinely interested in livestock conservation and 

 public health. The various provisions of this law give the designated 

 officials broad powers to suppress dangerous diseases whether the 

 disease appears only in isolated cases or as an epizootic; but there 

 is nothing in the Act which can reasonably be construed as unduly 

 burdensome to owners and reputable dealers in livestock. 



From earliest memory the horse dealer and cattle dealer has been 

 looked upon as a suspicious person. Many dealers take great pride 

 in their ability to cover up defects and diseases in sale stock so as 

 not to be detected by the average buyer at the time of purchase. 

 Until recently there was no adequate law to curb such questionable 

 practices and transmissible diseases have been largely spread through 

 the sale and resale of animals infected with a dangerous disease 

 which was more real than apparent. The present livestock laws, if 

 properly enforced, Avill prevent this illicit traffic in diseased animals 

 and protect healthy stock from exposure to infection. Any new 

 law which changes an unmoral practice to a criminal offense be- 

 comes burdensome to the person whose profits are affected and is 

 therefore regarded as unconstitutional because it interferes with his 

 right to do business according to previous custom. 



One of the early prosecutions brought under the Act of July 22, 

 1913, raised the question of conflict with the State Constitution. 

 The defendant, a cattle dealer, was charged with having sold and 

 transported over the public highway, a cow which was known to 

 be affected with tuberculosis. Defendant's counsel filed a demurrer 

 to the indictment alleging that the Act under which the indictment 

 was drawn is unconstitutional in several particulars and was sus- 

 tained by the Trial Court. The case was removed to the Superior 

 Court where the constitutionality of the Act was upheld and was 

 the occasion of a most interesting opinion from the Honorable Judge 

 Orlady, The construction put upon the Act is very broad indeed 

 and clears up several points, which may have been in dispute, affect- 

 ing other branches of the State Government. 



The adjudication as handed down by the Superior Court is as 

 follows : 



