14 ESSENTIALS OF 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 
sanitary measure, is really an unnecessary re- 
straint upon interstate trade.2? 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. 8. Su- 
preme Court upheld this as reasonable.21_ 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 2H. & St. J. R. R. Co. v. 
U. 8. 313. Husen, 5 Otto. 465. 
21 Smith v. St. Louis & 8. W. 
R. Co., 181 U. 8. 248. 
