PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOLL WEEVIL CONVENTION. 43 



In the case of Railroad Company vs. Husen, 95 U. S., the Supreme 

 Court of the United States recognized the right of a State, in the proper 

 exercise of its police power, to exclude, not only persons and things which 

 may endanger the life, health, peace or safety of her citizens, but declares 

 that "the same principle, it may also be conceded, would justify the 

 exclusion of property dangerous to the property of citizens of the State," 

 page 471. 



It is true that the Court in that case refused to sustain a statute of the 

 State of Missouri prohibiting the driving or conveying into or the keeping 

 in any county of that State, of Texas, Mexican or Indian cattle, between 

 the first day of March and the first day of November of each year. That 

 act was declared unconstitutional, however, on the ground that it was 

 neither a quarantine law, nor an inspection law, and because it practically 

 denied the entry into the State of Missouri of any Texas, Mexican or 

 Indian cattle, even though free from disease. The right, however, of 

 every State to protect itself in proper cases and by proper measures of 

 quarantine inspection against infection, whether from persons or property, 

 was distinctly recognized and affirmed. 



In a later decision, however, that of Kimmish vs. Ball, 129 U. S., the 

 Supreme Court had occasion to review the Husen case, and distinctly de- 

 clared at page 221 that, in that case, "no attempt was made to show that 

 all Texas, Mexican or Indian cattle, coming from the malarial district 

 during the months mentioned, were infected with the disease, or that such 

 cattle were so generally infected that it would have been impossible to 

 separate the healthy from the diseased. Had such proof been given a 

 different question would have been presented for the consideration of the 

 Court," for said the Court: "Certainly all animals thus infected may be 

 excluded from the State by its laws until they are cured of the disease 

 or until some mode of transporting them without danger of spreading it 

 is devised." 



In other words, the Court, in the later case, held that if the above facts 

 had been shown in the Husen case, it would have upheld the Missouri 

 statute as being in the nature of a quarantine law and not violative of the 

 commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States. 



The Supreme Court of the United States again, in Missouri, Kansas 

 and Texas Railway vs. Haber, 169 U. S., p. 130, in commenting upon the 

 Husen case, declared that "the Missouri statute was held to be uncon- 

 stitutional because it went beyond the necessities of the case, having been 

 so drawn as to exclude all Texas, Mexican or Indian cattle from the 

 State (except cattle to be transported across and out of the State), 

 whether free from disease or not, or whether they would or 

 would not do injury to the inhabitants of the State." The 

 Kansas statute, however, which was attacked in the Haber case, 

 was upheld by the Court. Referring to it, the Court said : "It does 



