46 PLANT QUARANTINE AND CONTROL ADMINISTRATION [April-June 
quarantine when he determined, after giving a public hearing, that such action 
was necessary, and the hearing having been held and the Secretary having 
made his determination that such action was necessary as the result of such 
hearing, the findings and determination by him could not be judically reviewed 
unless there was evidence of arbitrariness or unfairness, which the Court was 
unable to find. 
The following quotations give the language of the court : 
Numerous interesting questions of both law and fact have been thoroughly and ably 
discussed by counsel for the respective parties, but the really important question is : 
Whether there was substantial evidence presented at the hearing before the Secretary 
of Agriculture or the Federal Horticultural Board warranting the determination made, 
and the promulgation of the quarantine order. 
I have read and carefully considered the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, 
introduced at such hearing, and while I might not, upon a consideration thereof, have 
arrived at the same conclusion, as that arrived at by the Secretary. I can not say 
that there was- no substantial basis of fact to support the quarantine order here 
involved, neither can I say that the Secretary acted arbitrarily or unfairly. 
The Act of Congress having conferred upon the Secretary of Agriculture the power and 
duty to find facts and determine conditions upon which the operation of the statute 
depends, such findings and determination can not be judically reviewed in the absence 
of a showing that he acted arbitrarily or unfairly, or that 'there was no evidence to 
support such finding and determination. 
LITIGATION INVOLVING STATUTES. IN THE NATURE OF QUARANTINES, DESIGNED TO 
PREVENT THE SPREAD OF ORCHARD AND CROP DISEASES OR OF NOXIOUS VEGETATION 
(A) In the matter of preventing the spread of orchard and crop diseases 
(1) Federal courts 
The case of Miller v. Schoene, State entomologist (276 U. S. 272), was 
decided in February, 1928, in the United States Supreme Court and involved 
the constitutionality, under the due process clause of the fourteenth amend- 
ment, of a Virginia statute, which required the owner of private lands to cut 
down his cedar trees which were found to be infected with the cedar rust, in 
order to prevent the spread of that disease to near-by apple orchards. The 
court held (quoting, in part, from the syllabus in 4S Sup. Ct. Reporter, 246) 
as follows: 
Cedar Rust Act of Virginia (Code Va. 1924, Sees. 885-893), providing for destruction 
of cedar trees to prevent communication of plant disease to apple orchards, held not 
unconstitutional, as violating due process clause of Const. D. S. Amend. 14. since State, 
when forced to choose between destruction of one class of property or another, does not 
exceed constitutional powers by deciding on destruction of property which in judgment 
of Legislature is of less value to public. 
Where public interest is involved, preferment of that interest over property interest 
of individual to extent even of its destruction is one of distinguishing characteristics of 
every exercise of police power which affects property. 
The case of Kelleher v. French (22 Fed. 2d 341) in 1927, involved the same 
statute in Virginia as that in the Miller v. Schoene case and, in upholding it, 
the court said that, in the light of the evidence produced at the trial : 
We have no doubt that tbe enactment of the statute was a valid exercise of the police 
power of the State. Properly considered, it does not authorize the taking of one man's 
property for another man's benefit, but is a reasonable regulation of the use of property 
in furtherance of the public welfare. It authorizes the destruction of trees which are 
shown to be of but comparatively little value, only where they constitute a menace to 
a great industry of the State. 
(2) State courts 
The case of Carstens v. DeSellem (144 Pac. 934), in 1914, involved a Wash- 
ington statute which authorized the State commissioner of agriculture to 
destroy privately owned fruit trees, after having found them infected with a 
dangerous disease, when the owner failed to do so after notice of their con- 
dition. The court held that the statute was passed in a valid exercise of the 
State's police power and used in this striking language : " Broadly stated, the 
police power of the State is the State's law of self-defense in respect to both 
persons and property." 
The case of State v. Main (37 Atlantic 80), in 1897, involved a Connecticut 
statute which declared certain trees, when diseased with the " yellows." to be 
public nuisances and required their destruction, without compensation, by their 
