14 ESSENTIALS OP VETERINARY LAW 



reasonable interpretation of facts. Long ago the 

 Supreme Court of the United States showed that 

 a statute prohibiting the sale of meat unless 

 it shall have been inspected on the hoof within the 

 state, though on its face it may appear to be a 

 sanitaiy measure, is really an unnecessary re- 

 straint upon interstate trade.^^^ In other words, 

 the measures adopted for safeguarding the health 

 were unnecessarily strict, and therefore they were 

 unreasonable. At about the same time the states 

 of Missouri and Texas passed acts which were 

 intended to aid in the control of the Texas cattle 

 fever. The Texas act prohibited importation of 

 cattle from infected territory, and the U. S. Su- 

 preme Court upheld this as reasonable,^ ^ The 

 Missouri statute, as does also that in Illinois, 

 absolutely prohibited the importation of cattle 

 from a certain section during certain months of 

 the year. There was nothing in the law which 

 prevented the importation of cattle from other 

 sections which might be infected, nor was there 

 any exception made as to a section in the pre- 

 scribed territory where there might be none of 

 the fever found. It was an arbitrary prohibition 

 of the importation of cattle from a certain dis- 

 trict. It was an interference with interstate traf- 

 fic, and not really a health measure. The Su- 

 preme Court therefore held it unconstitutional.^^ 

 Cities, in their passage of ordinances, are very 

 prone to attempt this violation of rights. In the 

 granting of exclusive rights and franchises the 



20 Minnesota v. Barber, 136 22 H. & St. J. E. E. Co. v. 

 U. S. 313. Husen, 5 Otto. 465. 



21 Smith V. St. Louis & S. W. 

 E. Co., 181 TT. S. 248. 



