GENERAL PRINCIPLES 5 



nation. For example: There is in the Revised 

 Statutes of Illinois an act prohibiting the importa- 

 tion of Texas cattle into the state from the first 

 day of March to the first day of October. This 

 law, originally passed in 1867, was intended to 

 prevent the spread of the Texas cattle fever. A 

 similar law in Missouri was pronounced unconsti- 

 tutional by the Supreme Court of the United States 

 because it violated the right of Congress over 

 interstate commerce.^ Since then the Illinois 

 court has similarly decided that the Illinois stat- 

 iite is unconstitutional also.- This act should have 

 been repealed by the legislature. It remains as 

 one of the old curiosities. It is not law, though 

 it has the appearance of being such. 



Statutes are enactments m^ade by the legislative 

 body having jurisdiction. The field for statutes 

 is such subjects as need a definite settlement, 

 but the decision relative to which may need to 

 be revised. The statute must not violate consti- 

 tutional provisions. Otherwise, so long as the 

 law stands, whatever it commands must be done, 

 and it must be done in the way it is thus ordered. 

 The Texas law ordered that a butcher must 

 report to the County Commissioner's Court at 

 each term the number and description of all 

 cattle slaughtered by him since the last report. 

 The fact that a butcher presented such a report, 

 duly made out and sworn to, at a subsequent term 

 did not excuse his failure to comply with the law.^ 



iH. & St. J. R. E. Co. V. Erickson, 91 111. 613; Jarvis v. 



Husen, 5 Otto, 465. Riggin, 94 111. 164. 



2 Salzenstein v. Mavis, 91 3 Bruns v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. 



111. 391: C. & A. R. R. Co. v. 41.5, 26 S. W. 722. 



