1932] SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS 45 
may be excluded from interstate commerce, all local or State regulations in respect of 
such matters and covering the same ground will cease to have any force whether formally 
advocated or not, and such rules and regulations as Congress may prescribe or authorize 
will alone control. 
It may be observed that the quotation, given immediately above, might be 
taken almost verbatim from the Oregon-Washington case, if it were not for the 
fact that the court, in Reid v . Colorado, is dealing with livestock, instead of 
plants. 
To a like effect is the case of Southern Railway Co. v. Reid (222 U. S., 424), 
which involved the question of a North Carolina statute, which required com- 
mon carriers, under penalty, to transport freight to interstate points as soon 
as received. It was held that this was in conflict with the Hepburn Act of 
1906, forbidding interstate transportation until rates had been fixed and pub- 
lished. The court said (p. 436) : 
It is well settled that, if the State and Congress have a concurrent power, that of the 
State is superseded when the power of Congress is exercised. 
Also, at page 442: 
Manifestly, one authority must be paramount and when it speaks the other must be 
silent. We can see no middle ground. In so deciding we take no essential power from 
the State. Balances of the Constitution are only preserved and there is given to the 
State the power which is the State's and to Congress the power that belongs to Congress. 
Obviously, in view of the foregoing decisions, the opinion in the Oregon- 
Washington case was only following well-established precedents when it ended 
with the statement : " With the Federal law in force, State action is illegal 
and unwarranted." 
It is important to note that, shortly after the Supreme Court, in March, 1926, 
rendered its decision in the Oregon-Washington case, Congress, by Joint Reso- 
lution of April 13, 1926 (44 U. S. Stat. 250), modified the scope of that decision 
by an amendment to section 8 of the plant quarantine act, in which it was 
provided that, until the Secretary of Agriculture, under the authority of that 
act, had issued a quarantine with respect to particular insect pests and plant 
diseases, the States might issue and enforce plant quarantines on account of 
such pests or diseases and thus directly affect the interstate movement of plants 
and plant products, in such cases, in spite of the fact that the plant quarantine 
act was in force at the time. The amendment thus referred to reads as follows : 
Provided further, That until the Secretary of Agriculture shall have made a deter- 
mination that such a quarantine is necessary and has duly established the same with 
reference to any dangerous plant disease or insect infestation, as herein above pro- 
vided, nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent any State, Territory, Insular 
Possession, or District from promulgating, enacting, and enforcing any quarantine, pro- 
hibiting or restricting the transportation of any class of nursery stock, plant, fruit, seed, 
or other product or article subject to the restrictions of this section, into or through 
such State, Territory, District, or portion thereof, from any other State, Territory, 
District, or portion thereof, when it shall be found, by the State, Territory, or District 
promulgating or enacting the same, that such dangerous plant disease or insect 
infestation exists in such other State, Territory. District, or portion thereof : Provided 
further, That the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized whenever he deems 
such action advisable and necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. to cooperate 
with any State, Territory, or District, in connection with any quarantine, enacted or 
promulgated by such State, Territory, or District, as specified in the preceding proviso : 
Provided further, That any nursery stock, plant, fruit, seed, or other product or article, 
subject to the restrictions of this section, a quarantine with respect to which shall 
have been established by the Secretary of Agriculture under the provisions of this Act 
shall, when transported to. into, or through any State, Territory, or District, in violation 
of such quarantine, be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State, 
Territory, or District, enacted in the exercise of its police powers, to the same extent 
and in the same manner as though such nursery stock, plant, fruit, seed, or other 
product or article had been produced in such State, Territory, or District, and shall 
not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original packages 
or otherwise. 
LITIGATION INVOLVING THE LEGALITY OF A FEDERAL PLANT QUARANTINE ISSUED BY 
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 
United States District Court for the District of Arizona 
The case of Smith v. Jardine (United States Secretary of Agriculture) in- 
volved the question whether Federal Quarantine No. 61, to prevent the spread 
of a dangerous plant insect infestation, the Thurberia weevil, had been legally 
issued. The case was decided in November, 1930, and held (the decision has 
not been published) that, inasmuch as Congress in the plant quarantine act of 
August 20, 1912, had empowered the Secretary of Agriculture to issue the 
