Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow § 225.: National and State quarantine laws.— - A Treatise on State and Federal Control of Persons and Property in the United States considered from both a Civil and Criminal Standpoint, vol. 2

Return to Title Page for A Treatise on State and Federal Control of Persons and Property in the United States considered from both a Civil and Criminal Standpoint, vol. 2

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Law
Topic: The American Revolution and Constitution

§ 225.: National and State quarantine laws.— - Christopher G. Tiedeman, A Treatise on State and Federal Control of Persons and Property in the United States considered from both a Civil and Criminal Standpoint, vol. 2 [1900]

Edition used:

A Treatise on State and Federal Control of Persons and Property in the United States considered from both a Civil and Criminal Standpoint (St. Louis: The F.H. Thomas Law Book Co., 1900). Vol. 2.

Part of: A Treatise on State and Federal Control of Persons and Property in the United States considered from both a Civil and Criminal Standpoint, 2 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


§ 225.

National and State quarantine laws.—

It is, probably, not open to serious question that, whenever Congress undertakes to establish a general system of quarantine for the promotion of the general health of the country, and for the prevention of the introduction into the country of infectious and contagious diseases by diseased persons and animals, and infected goods, coming from foreign countries or other States, the regulations of Congress will supersede altogether the regulations of the State governments; and the jurisdiction of the States in such matters will be taken away completely. But, until Congress so acts, it is equally clear that the States may prescribe quarantine laws for the detention of vessels or railroad trains, on their entrance into a harbor or station, respectively, whenever for any reason the landing of the passengers, or the discharge of the cargo or freight, is likely to endanger the health of the city or State.1 This detention of passengers, as a prevention against contagious diseases, is justifiable, even though they may not have come from an infected place, provided they have traveled with those who did come from the infected localities.2 And the expense of detention and fumigation may be justly and lawfully laid upon the common carrier.3

But this extraordinary interference of the States with interstate traffic and commerce is confined to such measures, and to the cases in which such measures, as promise to protect the health of the people of the State or city. As has already been shown, the State cannot, for the protection of domestic cattle, prohibit altogether the importation into the State of cattle which may be afflicted with a contagious disease, such as Texas fever, or which carry with them into the States the germs of the disease.4 And it has also been held that a State cannot, for the prevention of the increase of the burden of pauperism, require common carriers, which bring indigent people into the State, to remove them from the State, if they should fall into distress within one year after their arrival. This is a regulation of foreign and interstate commerce, which the United States Government can alone institute and enforce.5

[1]License Cases, 5 How. 504, 632; Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419; Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co. v. Milner, 57 Fed. 276; Train v. Boston Disinfecting Co., 144 Mass. 523. In St. Louis v. McCoy, 18 Mo. 238, an ordinance of the city of St. Louis was sustained, which prescribed that boats coming from below Memphis, and having had on board, at any time, during the voyage, more than a specified number of passengers, should remain in quarantine for a specified period. See, also, St. Louis v. Boffinger, 18 Mo. 13.

[2]Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co. v. Milner, 57 Fed. 276.

[3]Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co. v. Milner, 57 Fed. 276; Train v. Boston Disinfecting Co., 144 Mass. 523.

[4]See ante, § 220, and the cases there cited.

[5]City of Bangor v. Smith, 83 Me. 422.