GOVERN^IENTAL SERVICES 149 



to the same diseases." *^ The state does not sur- 

 render quarantine authority to its component 

 parts by such permissions, and its power and au- 

 thority to establish quarantine within its limits 

 is not today questioned.^^ A statute delegating 

 to a city the power to make quarantine regulations 

 is not unconstitutional,^^ but *'A municipality has 

 no implied power to establish quarantine regula- 

 tions, and is not liable for the compensation of an 

 officer employed to enforce quarantine regulations 

 against a neighboring town in which an epidemic 

 occurs. " *^ In such a case the officer employing 

 such guardian, having exceeded his lawful author- 

 ity, and being the officer of an incorporated city, 

 may be possibly held individually liable for his 

 pay. Even where authority has been delegated by 

 the state to a city or county to establish and main- 

 tain quarantine, its ordinance will be declared 

 void if it conflicts with state quarantine laws.^^ 

 110. Quajrantine Versus Commerce. Properly 

 considered, quarantine is an aid to conunerce, and 

 not a restriction of commerce.^^ By preventing 

 the transportation of infectious materials com- 

 merce in legitimate articles is facilitated and made 

 more safe. But laws passed under the guise of 

 quarantine regulations, which are not such in fact, 

 but are really commercial restrictions, will not be 

 sustained.^" The Idaho sheep law of 1897 made it 



44 State Board of Health v. 47 New Decatur v. Berry, 90 

 Greenville, 86 Ohio, 1. Ala. 432. 



45 State ex rel. Adams v. 48 People v. Eoff, 3 Park. 

 Burdge, 95 Wis. 390, 70 N. W. Crim. Cas. 216. 



347, 37 L. K. A. 157. 49 Public Health, 409. 



46Metcalf V. St. Louis, 11 so Hannibal, etc., E. Co. v. 



Mo. 102. Husen, 5 Otto, 465; Salzenstein 



