Show Of TO WOOL Judge Stewart of Idaho Renders Decision Sweeping in I Extent Extent MATTER OF DIPPING SHEEP u I Your In II thu Sprint ln 1 liliU hll mi Ii H l ll i i Jound Anton on lt I Special Boise Ida Idl Feb I eb 17 A decision tec lol Is hI very sweeping In and alil one ono i which Is of at vital Importune to the wool er of the state of oC Idaho has Mi beau ele i by l Judge JUdie of or the dis district I i court Bols lul o In tn the of V vs Vf Dr 0 O U Noble oble state i iv veterinary v I IThe The new ne veterinary law ap approved proved March 8 G 1903 created a flat pI lt livestock military board cf t seven members on une from each Judicial district In tho state and u I veterinary who was 11 to tl jurisdiction all ul livestock Inelo k of or the these to 11 tolie lie appointed by the Or Dr 0 1 I wart Wil vot sur goon and under the Iho of ot tho law II he on al the of or September lant lul all al sheep heep In the tha state of ot tho liver to be dipped IIII whether same were ler diseased or 01 not Against this proclamation a number of or sheep men mel protested on 01 tho thel sheep p vert not diseased tl und that had already flipped dipped In the spring which won all al tho law required for healthy sheep Notable among thes Protestants were the Live Livestock stock company of Welser and ancl George V of ot Bole Bolio QUESTIONS INVOLVED The Th questions Involved were theao theae First IH If the tho net nd In II question queston known as II the It veterinary law approved March 6 1905 constitutional COI Second Is I ton 3 referred to In said Hald proclamation of ot Kept ept 12 I In with wih nn provisions of or the th and In federal constitutions and IH II th II me of at enforcement I Third does the fart that plaintiffs sheep shep ero In II May Inv 1905 an 11 here her herein herIn in vet fet foith relieve the plaintiff from froma a f wih the Ihl proclamation Is Issued I sued by b the defendant on Sept Belt 12 In disposing of ot the the court ourt handled the second and third conjoint conjointly ly Ir holding In tho first that It I U In II accord with wih tin til tale state und federal constitutions to the dipping of t sheep sheel once nm each aeh year and ani that this law III could be enforced enone but hUI where hc sheep ht p hal ha I dipped In the spring and nl there thelo wan IH found during the tl remainder of ot the ear no disease them there MOS os nothing hi II the law to 10 In rore a I In II this the court holds the state veterinarian wholly without authority In II the thC Issuance ance Ince of ot bin proclamation of ot Sept S pt 1 MOST IMPORTANT Coming to the first question the most mo Important one of or nil 11 the questions In Involved II ole In the tho re which calls calA Into question the constitutionality cOlet of or whole state sanitary law la us ne passed pa s 1 by the last lall tha court decide 1 that Ihl It I was IH unconstitutional This Thil o i ithe the i that It violated section seton IS of ut article rb 0 3 of or the state constitution which No net hal be he reviled or amended by mere m re r ter to IU I titles hut but tho section octon as amended shall be fet forth Ild published at lt full length I The veterinary law I section 39 that act fet wan wa Intended to repeal repell those provisions nf ot the sheep In law hll of which created tha tho of at sheep Inspector tor and n 11 deputy sheep but should hoUll not be con construed as lS repealing any al other r provision lon of ot said art alt not Inconsistent or In with wih the thu l of or thin art but th se acts shall hal bo be con construed together for thu purpose of ut cur car carrying out the object sought by b each loeh of ot cald 1111 arts to wit The suppression lul eradication I 11 1 11 of or Infectious Ipres and ant con contagious among livestock In Inthis this tho state sur fUI ren shall possess all al the tlC authority grunted the state Ra to sheep Inspector un der said sall act etc ele eleA AN A ATTEMPT TO CHANGE The ht court held that tha 9 was WIS u I clear deal und attempt to change modify amend the tho state In Inspector of ot 1991 1901 and this If attempt was WIS made without rotting forth the law lawas lawns as ns or nn section lelon thereof but that It WIS done donI or attempted d to bo ho done by h a l mere mer reference e to 10 the of the act ct of or 1911 It I therefore came tto clearly cerly within the constitutional pro provision I vision Islon above abol inferred to In passing po upon 1101 the question the court said Mid that tha It was Its duty to Lu sustain the law II Ie It I entertained a n doubt ns 18 to the constitutionality of ot H I question but that the I court COlt hod searched ear In aln for tor In nil IU which would ouch uch tin nn attempt at It legislation ns was Wil made In Inthe tho the foregoing act act While the tho courts o ot home om hold that u a law la may ba he I passed which covers Il VeS n 1 general sub aub nevertheless F tho th court was M un unable 11 able to tu find a decision which held hell that the legislature could cou by h di direct ri by hr title tte to ji former f mer act amend modify said all act nt no II time the entire law tho subject could be he 10 on al coul ns tl except CX by II rending both acts together and do this without setting forth the law Ill In 11 full rul as lB amended by bythe b the latter Ilter net ne If I this tolerated thru thel the th provision referred to would be a Il nullity nult and meaningless I ABOLITION OF 01 I I If I this decision stands U 1 mean lelM the abolition of at the tha Mate sanitary board th s of or tho state veterinarian awl ami tho restoration of or the tho sheep Inspector law II of ot 1901 Under tin tho old law In governor has haM power pO r to ap appoint point a n tate shell p Inspector who will wi IK 11 endowed with wih authority to enforce the thu dipping of or sheep and an this Ihl ns ni fully tul ad completely as a under tho law lawAn III An n from Crol Judge Stewarts St de decision te says Colonel John federal rl court will 1 ba bo taken to tha |