470 HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. [June 19, 
The question was whether the consolidated company was subject to 
such requirements. The controversy arose upon that part of the 
line which by the terms of the original charter was not subject to 
such legislation ; the court held, however, that the consolidation 
created a new corporation subject to such legislation as the consti- 
tution of the state at the time of the consolidation permitted it. 
Justices Field and Strong again dissented on the general ground 
that the state legislature had no authority to prescribe maximum 
rates to the company while continuing its existence and manage- 
ment of the line agreed in the original charter not to be subject to 
such action. 
Another railroad case in this year, 1877, is of special interest 
because of the change that the court found itself compelled to 
make a few years later in its rulings on the same subject. - One 
1 Husen brought suit against the Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R. Co. 
for damages alleged to have been incurred because of the violation 
by the company of an act of the Missouri legislature in relation to 
“¢ Texas, Mexican or Indian cattle.’’ ‘The law in question provided 
that between March 1 and November 1 of each year no such cattle 
could be brought into or remain in the state, unless kept the en- 
tire previous winter in the state. They might be taken through the 
state on cars or boats, but the transportation companies should be 
liable for all damages resulting from Spanish or Texas fever along 
the line of transportation and the existence of the disease along 
such route should be gvzma facte evidence that it came from such 
transportation. 
At the trial it was objected that the act was in violation of the 
constitution and an attempt by a state to regulate interstate com- 
merce. It was earnestly argued and the numerous holdings as to 
quarantine powers and the right to prohibit the carrying of detri- 
mental articles all cited. Judge Strong, however, in passing on the 
case found only the question raised whether the act was a regulation 
of commerce and so void as infringing upon the powers of Con- 
gress under the constitution. He found that the statute, since it 
absolutely prevented the importation of healthy cattle during two- 
thirds of the year, put a burden upon such cattle when merely carried 
through the state and must be regarded as a regulation of commerce, 
unless it could be justified as a measure of police. 
195 U. S., 465. 
