GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 149 
to the same diseases.’’ ‘4 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.’’ #7 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. Quarantine Versus Commerce. Properly 
considered, quarantine is an aid to commerce, 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. Roff, 3 Park. 
Burdge, 95 Wis. 390, 70 N. W. Crim. Cas. 216. 
347, 37 L. R. A. 157. 49 PuBLIC HEALTH, 409. 
46 Metcalf v. St. Louis, 11 50 Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. 
Mo. 102. Husen, 5 Otto, 465; Salzenstein 
