Asbell v. State of Kansas
Decision Date | 23 March 1908 |
Docket Number | No. 166,166 |
Citation | 209 U.S. 251,52 L.Ed. 778,28 S.Ct. 485 |
Parties | B. F. ASBELL, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF KANSAS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Nelson Case and Archie D. Neale for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 251-253 intentionally omitted] Messrs. E. L. Burton, C. E. Pile, and W. B. Glasse for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 253-254 intentionally omitted]
A statute of the state of Kansas makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by fine or imprisonment or both, for any person to transport into the state cattle from any point south of the south line of the state, except for immediate slaughter, without hav- ing first caused them to be inspected and passed as healthy by the proper state officials or by the Bureau of Animal Industry of the Interior Department of the United States. Session Laws of 1905, chap. 495, § 27. The plaintiff in error was duly charged by information in the state court with a violation of this statute, and found guilty by the verdict of a jury. The conviction was affirmed by the supreme court of the state, and the case is now here on a writ of error, allowed by the chief justice of that court. The only Federal question insisted upon in argument is whether the statute was a restriction of interstate commerce which was not within the power of a state to impose.
The obvious purpose of the law was to guard against the introduction into the state of cattle infected with a communicable disease. It undoubtedly restricts the absolute freedom of interstate commerce in cattle, but only to the extent that all cattle coming to cross the guarded boundary are subjected to inspection to ascertain whether or not they are diseased. If healthy they are admitted; if diseased they are excluded. The validity of such a restriction for such purposes has been frequently considered by this court, and the principles applicable to the settlement of the question have been clearly defined. The governmental power over the commerce which is interstate is vested exclusively in the Congress by the commerce clause of the Constitution, and therefore is withdrawn from the states. It is not now necessary to cite the many cases supporting this proposition, or to consider some expressions in the books somewhat qualifying its generality, because in carefully chosen words it has recently been affirmed by us. At this term, Mr. Justice Peckham, speaking for the court, said: 'That any exercise of state authority, in whatever form manifested, which directly regulates interstate commerce, is repugnant to the commerce clause of the Constitution, is obvious.' Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Wharton, 207 U. S. 328, 334, ante, 121, 123, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 121, 123.
But, though it may not legislate for the direct control of interstate commerce, the state may exercise any part of the legis- lative power which was not withdrawn from it expressly or by implication by the scheme of government put into operation by the Federal Constitution. It may sometimes happen that a law passed in pursuance of the acknowledged power of the state will have an indirect effect upon interstate commerce. Such a law, though it is essential to its validity that authority be found in a governmental power entirely distinct from the power to regulate interstate commerce, may reach and indirectly control that subject. It was at an early day observed by Chief Justice Marshall that legislation referable to entirely different legislative powers might affect the same subject. He said in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 194, 204, 6 L. ed. 68, 72:
Foreseeing cases where national and state legislation based upon different powers might, in their application, be brought into conflict, he, in the same case (p. 211), declared that then 'the law of the state, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield,'—a rule which has constantly been applied by this court. These general principles control the decision of the case at bar....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shepard v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
... ... Laws Supp. 1909, Secs. 2007-- 1 to ... 2007-- 2)), reducing passenger fares within the state about ... 33 1/3 per cent., and of April 18, 1907 (Gen. Laws 1907, c ... 232 (Rev. Laws Supp ... Wharton, 207 U.S. 328, 28 Sup.Ct. 121, 52 L.Ed ... 230; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Kansas, 216 U.S ... 1, 24, 27, 37, 30 Sup.Ct. 190, 54 L.Ed. 355; Ludwig v ... Western Union ... 1105); excluding ... diseased cattle by means of a reasonable inspection law ... ( Asbell v. State of Kansas, 209 U.S. 251, 256, 28 ... Sup.Ct. 485, 52 L.Ed. 778); requiring reasonable ... ...
-
George Simpson v. David Shepard No 291 George Simpson v. Emma Kennedy No 292 George Simpson v. William Shillaber No 293
...811; Reid v. Colorado, 187 U. S. 138, 47 L. ed. 108, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 92, 12 Am. Crim. Rep. 506; Asbell v. Kansas, 209 U. S. 251, 52 L. ed. 778, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 485, 14 Ann. Cas. 1101. In Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. State Bd. of Health, 186 U. S. 380, 46 L. ed. 1209, 22 S......
-
Marion Savage v. William Jones
...McLean v. Denver & R. G. R. Co. 203 U. S. 38, 50, 51 L. ed. 78, 86, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1; Asbell v. Kansas, 209 U. S. 251, 254-256, 52 L. ed. 778, 780, 781, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 485, 14 Ann. Cas. 1101; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Arkansas, 219 U. S. 453, 55 L. ed. 290, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. In Pluml......
-
Western Union Telegraph Company v. State of Kansas On the Relation of Coleman
...by name or form. Stockard v. Morgan, 185 U. S. 27, 37, 46 L. ed. 785, 794, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 576; Asbell v. Kansas, 209 U. S. 251, 254, 256, 52 L. ed. 778, 780, 781, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 485. Page We are of opinion that the statute levying this tax does amount to an attempt to regulate commerce ......