346 impounding; injuries on highways, etc. 



Concerning the advisability of framing such statutes it is 

 said in a Kansas case, "We shall assume for the purposes of 

 this case that the . . . 'Texas cattle law' is constitutional and 

 valid. . . . There certainly is a great necessity for some such 

 law. If that class of men who care nothing for the rights of 

 others were allowed by law to bring cattle to Kansas from 

 Texas and the Indian country whenever they might choose, 

 and thereby spread disease and death among our native cattle, 

 it would either make cattle-raising in Kansas so hazardous a 

 business that but few men would wish to engage in it, or it 

 would lead to such concerted force, and possibly mob vio- 

 lence, that those who care nothing for the rights of others 

 would hardly dare to bring their Southern, death-disseminat- 

 ing cattle among the native cattle of this State. There are 

 several differences between this act of the legislature of Kan- 

 sas and a similar act of the legislature of Missouri, which the 

 Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of R. R. Co. 

 V. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, declared unconstitutional and void, 

 and, with these differences, the Supreme Court of the United 

 States would perhaps declare the act of the legislature of Kan- 

 sas constitutional and valid." ^*^ 



The management of cattle domiciled in a State is regulated 

 by State laws, not by the act of Congress of May 29, 1884, 

 unless the State has determined to co-operate with the Secre- 

 tary of Agriculture in the execution of the act. The latter 



That a statute assuming this latter fact does not require the j.ury to be- 

 lieve without evidence that the disease is thus communicated, see Davis 

 V. Walker, 60 111. 452. As to what is an unloading of diseased matter that 

 will make a railway company liable, see Pike v. Eddy, 53 Mo. App. 505; 

 Bradford v. Mo., K. & T. R. Co., 64 id. 475, cited in § 113, infra. 



See also Mo., K. & T. R. Co. v. Haber, infra. 



"" Stager v. Harrington, 27 Kan. 414, 419. 



That an act of Congress establishing means for the suppression of dis- 

 ease does not interfere with the State statutes, see Mo., K. & T. R. Co. 

 V. Haber, 56 Kan. 694, affirmed in 169 U. S. 613. And acts preventing 

 the exportation of diseased cattle and permitting the owner of dead ani- 

 mals to dispose of them as he pleases, are not in substantial conflict: Cot- 

 ting V. Kansas City Stock Yards Co., 79 Fed. Rep. 679. 



