Kimmish v. Ball
| Decision Date | 28 January 1889 |
| Citation | 129 U.S. 217,9 S.Ct. 277,32 L.Ed. 695 |
| Parties | KIMMISH v. BALL et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Isaac
[Statement of Case from pages 217-219 intentionally omitted] N. Flickinger, for plaintiff in error.
W. F. Sapp, for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice FIELD, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
In order to understand section 4059 of the Code of Iowa it must be read in connection with the preceding section, 4058, to which it refers. It must also be known what is meant by 'Texas cattle,' and what influence a winter north has upon the disease called 'Texas Fever,' with which such cattle are liable to be infected. Section 4058 is leveled against the importation of Texas cattle which have not been wintered north of the southern boundary of Missouri or Kansas. Any person bringing into the state Texas cattle, unless they have been thus wintered, is subject to be fined or imprisoned. When, therefore, section 4059 refers to the possession in the state of any 'such Texas cattle,' it means cattle which have not been wintered north, as mentioned in the preceding section. It is only when they have not been thus wintered that apprehension is felt that they may be infected with the disease, and spread it among other cattle. The term 'Texas cattle' is not defined in the Code of Iowa; and whether used there to designate cattle from the state of Texas alone, or, as averred by the plaintiff in error, a particular breed or variety called Mexican or Spanish cattle, which are also found in Arkansas and the Indian Territory, is not material for the disposition of this case. Cattle coming from both of those states and from that territory, during the spring and summer months are often infected with what is known as 'Texas Fever.' It is supposed that they become infected with the germs of this distemper while feeding, during those months, on the low and moist grounds of those states and territory, constituting what are called their malarial districts, which are largely covered with a thick vegetable growth. These germs are communicated to domestic cattle by contact, or by feeding in the same range or pasture. Scientists are not agreed as to the causes of the malady; and it is not important for our decision which of the many theories advanced by them is correct. That cattle coming from those sections of the country during the spring and summer months are often infected with a contagious and dangerous fever is a notorious fact; as is also the fact that cold weather, such as is usual in the winter north of the southern boundary of Missouri and Kansas, destroys the virus of the disease, and thus removes all danger of infection. It is upon these notorious facts that the legislation of Iowa for the exclusion from their limits of these cattle, unless they have passed a winter north, is based. See Railway Co. v. Finley, 38 Kan. 556, 16 Pac. Rep. 951. Also, First Annual Report to the Commissioner of Agriculture of the Bureau of Animal Industry for 1884, p. 426, and Second Annual Report of same bureau for 1885, p. 310.
Section 4059, with which we are concerned, provides that any person who has in his possession in the state of Iowa any Texas cattle which have not been wintered north shall be allowing such cattle to run at large, and thereby spread the disease. We are unable thereby spread the disease. We are unable to appreciate the force of the objection that such legislation is in conflict with the paramount authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. We do not see that it has anything to do with that commerce. It is only leveled against allowing diseased Texas cattle held within the state to run at large. The defendants labor under the impression that the validity of section 4058, which is directed against the importation into the state of such cattle unless they have been wintered north, is before us, and that a consideration of its validity is necessary in passing upon section 4059; but this is a mistake. Section 4058 is before us only that we may ascertain from it the meaning intended by certain terms used in the subsequent section referring to it, and wot upon any question of its constitutionality. Nor does the case of Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Huntley
...not, have been held unconstitutional, on the ground that they made no distinction. Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U.S. 465; Kimmish v. Ball, 129 U.S. 217, 221, 9 S.Ct. 277. St.1891, c. 58, does not fall within the principle of decisions, it being limited in its operation to oleomargarine which i......
-
Leisy v. Hardin
...locomotive engineers to be examined and obtain a license was not in its nature a regulation of commerce; and in Kimmish v. Ball, 129 U. S. 217, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277, that a statute providing that a person having in his possession Texas cattle, which had not been wintered north of the souther......
-
Jamieson v. Indiana Natural Gas & Oil Co.
...regulation of the mode of conveying from the wells a local product of an intrinsically dangerous nature. The case of Kimmish v. Ball, 129 U. S. 217, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277, modifies the decision in Railroad Co. v. Husen, or, at least, explains it. But in Railroad Co. v. Husen it was said: “Man......
-
First Nat. Ben. Soc. v. Garrison
...485, 52 L.Ed. 778, 14 Ann.Cas. 1101; Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Husen, 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, 18......