The provision in the statute of March 13, 1899, of Idaho
that
"whenever the Governor of the State of Idaho has reason to
believe that scab or any other infectious disease of sheep has
become epidemic in certain localities in any other state or
Territory, or that conditions exist that render sheep likely to
convey disease, he must thereupon by proclamation, designate such
localities and prohibit the importation from them of any sheep into
the state, except under such restrictions as, after consultation
with the state sheep inspector, he may deem proper"
does not conflict with the Constitution of the United
States.
This case distinguished from
Railroad Co. v. Husen,
95 U. S. 465.
On March 13, 1899, the Legislature of Idaho passed an act, the
first section of which contains the following:
"Whenever the Governor of the State of Idaho has reason to
believe that scab or any other infectious disease of sheep has
become epidemic in certain localities in any other state or
territory, or that conditions exist that render sheep likely to
convey disease, he must thereupon, by proclamation, designate such
localities, and prohibit the importation from them of any sheep
into the state, except under such restrictions as, after
Page 181 U. S. 199
consultation with the state sheep inspector, he may deem
proper."
Session Laws Idaho, 1899, p. 452.
Subsequent provisions of the statute prescribed penalties for
its violation. On April 12, 1899, the Governor of Idaho issued the
following proclamation:
"
PROCLAMATION."
"
Scheduling Certain Localities on Account of Scab or
Scabbies"
"Idaho, Executive Office"
"Whereas I have received statements from reliable wool growers
and stock raisers of the State of Idaho, said statements being
supplemented by affidavits of reputable persons, all to the effect
that the disease known as scab or scabbies is epidemic among sheep
in certain localities or districts,
viz., in the County of
Cache, State of Utah, the County of Box Elder, in the State of
Utah, and the County of Elko, in the State of Nevada; and,"
"Whereas it is known that sheep from said districts are annually
moved, driven, or imported into the State of Idaho, and if so moved
would thereby spread infection and disease on the ranges and among
the sheep of this state, which act would result in great
disaster,"
"Now therefore I, Frank Steunenberg, Governor of the State of
Idaho, by virtue of authority in me vested, and after due
consultation with the state sheep inspector, do hereby prohibit the
importation, driving, or moving into the State of Idaho of all
sheep now being held, herded, or ranged within said infected
district,
viz., the County of Cache, in the State of Utah,
the County of Box Elder, in the State of Utah, and the County of
Elko, in the State of Nevada, or which may hereafter be held,
herded, or ranged within said infected districts, for a period of
sixty days from and after the date of this proclamation; after the
termination of said sixty days, sheep can be moved into this state
only upon compliance with the laws of the State of Idaho regarding
the inspection and dipping of sheep."
Under this statute and the accompanying proclamation, the
plaintiff in error was arrested, tried, and convicted in the
District Court of the Fifth Judicial District sitting in and for
the
Page 181 U. S. 200
County of Oneida, State of Idaho. His conviction was sustained
by the supreme court of the state, 59 P. 933, and to reverse such
judgment of conviction this writ of error was sued out.
MR. JUSTICE BREWER delivered the opinion of the Court.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Idaho establishes that
there is no conflict between this legislation and the constitution
of the state, and it is not within the province of this Court to
review that question.
Merchants' &c. Bank v.
Pennsylvania, 167 U. S. 461, and
cases cited in the opinion.
The single question, therefore, for our consideration is whether
this legislation conflicts with the federal Constitution. Plaintiff
in error relies largely on
Railroad Company v. Husen,
95 U. S. 465. In
that case, the validity of an act of the State of Missouri was
presented. The act provided that
"no Texas, Mexican, or Indian cattle shall be driven or
otherwise conveyed into or remain in any county in this state
between the first day of March and the first day of November in
each year by any person or persons whatsoever."
It was held to be in conflict with the constitutional grant of
power to Congress to regulate commerce between the states. In the
opinion, the police power of the state, the power by which the
state prevents the introduction into its midst of noxious articles,
was fully recognized, but attention was called to the fact that
there was an absolute prohibition of the bringing in of Texas,
Mexican, or Indian cattle during eight months of the year, without
reference to the actual condition of the cattle, and it was
said:
"Tried by this rule, the statute of Missouri is a plain
intrusion upon the exclusive domain of Congress. It is not a
quarantine law. It is not an inspection law. It says to all
natural
Page 181 U. S. 201
persons and to all transportation companies,"
"You shall not bring into the state any Texas cattle or any
Mexican cattle or Indian cattle, between March 1 and December
[November] 1 in any year, no matter whether they are free from
disease of not; no matter whether they may do an injury to the
inhabitants of the state or not. . . . Such a statute, we do not
doubt, it is beyond the power of a state to enact. To hold
otherwise would be to ignore one of the leading objects which the
Constitution of the United States was designed to secure."
P.
95 U. S.
473.
It will be perceived that the act was an absolute prohibition
operative during eight months of each year. It was an act
continuous in its force, provided for no inspection, and was
predicated on the assumption that the state had the right to
exclude for two-thirds of each year the introduction of all those
kinds of cattle, sick or well, and whether likely to distribute
disease or not.
In the case before us, the statute makes no absolute prohibition
of the introduction of sheep, but authorizes the Governor to
investigate the condition of sheep in any locality, and, if found
to be subject to the scab or any epidemic disease liable to be
communicated to other sheep, to make such restriction on their
introduction into the state as shall seem to him, after conference
with the state sheep inspector, to be necessary. The Executive
acted on the authority thus conferred, and, after consultation with
the state sheep inspector and examination of the matter, found that
the scab was epidemic in certain localities in Utah and Nevada, and
that, if sheep from those localities were moved therefrom into
Idaho, they would spread infection and disease among the sheep of
the state, and thereupon forbade the introduction of sheep from
such localities for the space of sixty days. It will be perceived
that this is not a continuous act, operating year after year
irrespective of any examination as to the actual facts, but is one
contemplating in every case investigation by the chief executive of
the state before any order of restraint is issued. Whether such
restraint shall be total or limited, and for what length of time,
are matters to be determined by him upon full consideration of the
condition of the sheep in the localities supposed to be affected.
The statute was an act
Page 181 U. S. 202
of the State of Idaho, contemplating solely the protection of
its own sheep from the introduction among them of an infectious
disease, and providing for only such restraints upon the
introduction of sheep from other states as in the judgment of the
state was absolutely necessary to prevent the spread of disease.
The act therefore is very different from the one presented in
Railroad Co. v. Husen, supra, and is fairly to be
considered a purely quarantine act, and containing within its
provisions nothing which is not reasonably appropriate therefor.
There being no other federal question in the case, the judgment of
the Supreme Court of Idaho is
Affirmed.
