GOVERNMENTAL INSPECTION 171 
disputed. It therefore becomes necessary to thor- 
oughly examine the cattle, not only for tubercu- 
losis, but for other debilitating, or infecting 
diseases. A cow well advanced in tuberculosis be- 
trays her condition on inspection without special 
tests, but in the earlier stages the most careful 
physical examination may fail to discover the in- 
fection. In these early cases science demands that 
the tuberculin test be made, and that it be repeated 
from time to time. Since this necessity is recog- 
nized in science as a most reliable, though not 
infallible test, ordinances and legal regulations 
requiring that the test be made are generally up- 
held.17 It is a question for the legislative (or 
sometimes executive) branch of the government 
to decide whether or not this test shall be re- 
quired, and it is not for the court to declare an 
ordinance unconstitutional or void because some 
other method, such as pasteurization may appear 
better.'8 The early detection of infected animals 
is really for the interest of the farmers, as well as 
the consumers of the milk, but Llinois farmers 
had been purchasing infected cattle from other 
states to such a degree that they opposed the en- 
forcement of such a rule by the city of Chicago, 
and under the leadership of Shurtleff secured the 
passage of a statute in Illinois forbidding cities 
from making such a requirement.!® The legis- 
lature had an unquestioned authority to enact such 
17 Borden vy. Board of Health, 16; Hawkins v. Hoye (Miss.), 
Montclair, 81 N. J. L. 218, 80 66 So. 741. 
Atl. 30; Adams v. Milwaukee, 18 Nelson v. Minneapolis, 112 
144 Wis. 371, 129 N. W. 518; Minn. 16. 
sustained, 228 U. 8. 572; Nel- 19 Session Laws, Illinois, 
son v. Minneapolis, 112 Minn. 1911, p. 6. 
