160 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 
measures. The ordinance was enacted under the 
authority of the state, and it is almost universal 
practice to recognize in such matters the author- 
ity of the state courts.°® Though in this matter 
the act was being enforced by one who held office 
under the national government, strictly we do not 
believe that in this he should be regarded as such. 
The court did not issue the injunction asked,’° 
and the Louisiana supreme court later passed 
upon the validity of the ordinance.” If the fed- 
eral court did not have jurisdiction over the sub- 
stance of the ordinance it was apparently incom- 
petent to pass upon the enforcement of the same. 
By the Act of March 3, 1905,"? ‘‘The Secretary 
of Agriculture is authorized and directed to quar- 
antine any state or territory or the District of 
Columbia, and any portion of any state or terri- 
tory or the District of Columbia, when he shall 
determine the facts that cattle or other live stock 
in such state or territory or District of Columbia 
are affected with any contagious, infections or 
communicable disease.’’ But the expression ‘‘any 
portion of any state,’’ etc., does not give authority 
to establish a quarantine within a state, but 
against a portion of a state. This is apparent 
from sections 2, 3 and 4 of this act, wherein it is 
specially mentioned that shipment from the quar- 
antined portions of states into other states and 
territories is prohibited. The power of Congress 
69 PuBLIC HEALTH, 139. 71City of New Orleans vy. 
70 Mrs. Wid. John G. Kuhl- Sanford, 69 So. 35. 
man et als. v. Rucker, Mch. 15, 7233 Stat. 1264. 
1915, 30 U. 8. Public Health 
Reports, 1033. 
