150 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 
unlawful to bring sheep into the state without 
having them dipped. This was to prevent the in- 
troduction of certain infectious diseases, but as 
the statute was worded the dipping had no neces- 
sary connection with the presence of disease. All 
sheep must be dipped, and the dipping of sheep 
which were not infected would increase the cost 
of the importation. By thus increasing the cost 
of importation, the value of the sheep already 
within the state would be increased. This law was 
therefore considered as not strictly a quarantine 
regulation, but as a restriction upon interstate and 
foreign commerce, and therefore as an infringe- 
ment upon the Constitutional authority of Con- 
gress.*1 On the other hand, where the act clearly 
related to quarantine, as where it put restrictions 
upon cattle coming from infected districts,>? or 
where it required an inspection of sheep before 
permitting them upon the public highways,®* it 
was upheld. The Idaho law of 1899 provided for 
the establishment of a sheep quarantine upon 
proclamation of the Governor. Acting under this 
law the Governor issued a proclamation for the 
quarantine of sheep on account of scab. The court, 
however, held that this was really a restriction of 
commerce, because in fact there was no disease 
epidemic.*4 
It is evident that the establishment and main- 
tenance of quarantine may restrict the commer- 
v. Mavis, 91 Ill. 391; Jarvis v. 53 Rasmussen v. State of 
Riggin, 94 Tl. 164. Idaho, 181 U. S, 198. 
51 State v. Duckworth, 5 Ida. 54Smith v. Lowe, 121 Fed. 
642, 51 Pac. 456. 753. 
52 Smith v. St. L. & 8. W. B. 
Co., 181 U. 8. 248. 
