No. 6. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 533 



subject which is the common subject of the enactment. Tlie Lej^is- 

 hituie cannot delegate its power to make a law; but it can make a 

 hiw to (lelejj;ate a power to determine some fact or state of things 

 upon which the law makes, or intends to make its own action <h'- 

 pend: McGonnell's License, 2(MJ Pa. 327; Foster Township Koad Tax, 

 32 Pa. Superior Ct. 51. As was said in Locke's Appeal, 72 Pa. 401, 

 "There aie many things upon which wise and useful legislation 

 nuist depend, which cannot be known to the law-making power, 

 and must, therefore, be a subject of inquiry and determination out- 

 side of halls of legislation." See also C, M. St. Paul K. K. v. Minn., 

 134 U. S. 143; Elwell v. Comstock, 100 Minnesota, 261; Kailroad 

 V. Railroad, 206 U. S. 314; Saratoga v. Gas Co., 191 N. Y. 125, and 

 the recent Minnesota Rate Case, 230 U. S. 380. 



The list of dangerous diseases enumerated in the Act, rendered 

 it vitally important to piovide tliat the inspection and care of affect- 

 ed animals and the disposition of carcasses of such, should be under 

 the control of experienced persons, both for the treatment of such 

 and the prevention of epidemic, and for preservation of the records, 

 which result could only be secured by organized bodies of men, who 

 were specially trained in that department of learning. 



The act is intended to regulate the transportation of any animal, 

 wild or domestic, having a transmissible disease. The purpose is 

 avowedly to prevent, control and eradicate diseases of domestic 

 animals. But it is just as proper to regulate the transportation of 

 elk, deer or foxes when they may be the means of spreading infec- 

 tious diseases among domestic animals as it is to prescribe the 

 manner of transporting of the well-known barn or herd stock. The 

 act is framed in clear, unambigious words and it is meant to apply 

 to all animals under the control of man. 



The defendant did not ask for a bill of particulars, and could 

 not be misled by any of the provisions of the Act which are fully 

 indicated by the title. Even if the Act of July 22, 1913, is at all 

 doubtful, as to its constitutionality, which is not admitted, the in- 

 dictment was good under the Act of March 30, 1905, P. L, 78, which 

 is in substance the same as Section 26 of the Act before us, and is 

 still in force. It made no difference under what particular section 

 of a statute the indictment may have been drawn, nor are the in- 

 firmities of such section of the indictment thereunder material, 

 provided the indictment be good under some other section of a 

 statute which is valid: 22 Cyc. p. 3, Sec. 8. See also State v. 

 Vandenberg, 159 Missouri, 230 ; 60 S. W. Repr. 79. 



The judgment is reversed, the record to be remitted to the court 

 below with a procedendo. 



35 



