Rasmussen v. State of Idaho
| Decision Date | 22 April 1901 |
| Docket Number | No. 215,215 |
| Citation | 181 U.S. 198,45 L.Ed. 820,21 S.Ct. 594 |
| Parties | R. RASMUSSEN, Plff. in Err. , v. STATE OF IDAHO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On March 13, 1899, the legislature of Idaho passed an act the 1st 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 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.
State of 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 Inaho, 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 county of Oneida, state of Idaho. His conviction was sustained by the supreme court of the state (59 Pac. 933), and to reverse such judgment of conviction this writ of error was sued out.
Messrs. Arthur Brown and Henry P. Henderson for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Samuel H. Hays and Frank Martin, Attorney General of Idaho, for defendant in error.
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' & Mfrs. Bank v. Pennsylvania, 167 U. S. 461, 42 L. ed. 236, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829, 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 Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 24 L. ed. 527. In that case the validity of an act...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
George Simpson v. David Shepard No 291 George Simpson v. Emma Kennedy No 292 George Simpson v. William Shillaber No 293
...42 L. ed. 878, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1, 44 L. ed. 347, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 251; Rasmussen v. Idaho, 181 U. S. 198, 45 L. ed. 820, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. State Bd. of Health, Page 407 U. S. 380, 46 L. ed. 1209, 22 Sup. C......
-
South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros
...30 L.Ed. 237; Patapsco Guano Co. v. North Carolina Board of Agriculture, 171 U.S. 345, 18 S.Ct. 862, 43 L.Ed. 191; Rasmussen v. Idaho, 181 U.S. 198, 21 S.Ct. 594, 45 L.Ed. 820; Smith v. St. Louis & S.W.R. Co., 181 U.S. 248, 21 S.Ct. 603, 45 L.Ed. 847; Reid v. Colorado, 187 U.S. 137, 23 S.Ct......
-
Chemical Waste Management, Inc v. Hunt
...L.Ed. 1209 (1902); Smith v. St. Louis & Southwestern R. Co., 181 U.S. 248, 21 S.Ct. 603, 45 L.Ed. 847 (1901); Rasmussen v. Idaho, 181 U.S. 198, 21 S.Ct. 594, 45 L.Ed. 820 (1901); Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. v. Haber, 169 U.S. 613, 18 S.Ct. 488, 42 L.Ed. 878 (1898); Bowman v. Chicago & Northwest......
-
First Nat. Ben. Soc. v. Garrison
...1878, 95 U.S. 465, 471, 24 L.Ed. 527; Kimmish v. Ball, 1889, 129 U.S. 217, 220, 9 S.Ct. 277, 32 L.Ed. 695; Rasmussen v. Idaho, 1901, 181 U. S. 198, 21 S.Ct. 594, 45 L.Ed. 820; Smith v. St. Louis & S. W. R. Co., 1901, 181 U.S. 248, 21 S.Ct. 603, 45 L.Ed. 847; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Habe......