160 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 



measures. The ordinance was enacted under the 

 authority of the state, and it is ahnost universal 

 practice to recognize in such matters the author- 

 ity of the state courts.^ ^ Though in this matter 

 the act was being enforced by one who held office 

 under the national government, strictly we do not 

 believe that in this he should be regarded as such. 

 The court did not issue the injunction asked,'^ 

 and the Louisiana supreme court later passed 

 upon the validity of the ordinance."^^ If the fed- 

 eral court did not have jurisdiction over the sub- 

 stance of the ordinance it was apparently incom- 

 petent to pass upon the enforcement of the same. 

 By the Act of March 3, 1905,'^2 ^^Tj^g Secretary 

 of Agriculture is authorized and directed to quar- 

 antine any state or territory or the District of 

 Columbia, and any portion of any state or terri- 

 tory or the District of Columbia, when he shall 

 determine the facts that cattle or other live stock 

 in such state or territory or District of Columbia 

 are affected with any contagious, infections or 

 communicable disease. ' ' But the expression ^ ' any 

 portion of any state,'* etc., does not give authority 

 to establish a quarantine within a state, but 

 against a portion of a state. This is apparent 

 from sections 2, 3 and 4 of this act, wherein it is 

 specially mentioned that shipment from the quar- 

 antined portions of states into other states and 

 territories is prohibited. The power of Congress 



69 Public Health, 139. fi City of New Orleans v. 



70 Mrs. Wid. John G. Kuhl- Sanford, 69 So. 35. 

 man et als. v. Eucker, Mch. 15, 72 33 Stat. 1264. 

 1915, 30 U. S. Public Health 



Eeports, 1033. 



