209 U. 8. ArSun?t for Plaintiff ia ?r. thlnl? that the auditor correctly adopted as the measure of damages the value of the use of the property for the period and season during which she was thus deprived of it as the direct result of the restraining order which, in another proceeding, has been found to have been wrongfully and inequitably sued out. 'The decree of the court below is ASBELL v. STATE OF KANSAS.' ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. N?. 166. ?]ubmitted March 6, 19(?.--D$cided Mamh ?, I?0? While the State may not legislate for the direct control of interstate cam- merce, a pruper police regulation which does not conflict with cangre? eional legislation on the' subject involved is not necessarily unconstitu* tiehal because i.t may have an indirect effec? upon interstate commerce. Until Co?gre? acts on the subject a State may, in the exercise of its police power, enact laws for the inspection o[ cattle coming from other State?. Re/d v. Co/oracle, 187 U.S. 137. Congress has not enacted any legielation destroying the-right of a State ? provide for the inspection of cattle and prohibiting the bringing within its borders of diseased cattle not inspected and po?ed as healthy either by the proper state or national officials. A State m?y not under pretense of protecting the public health exclude the products or. merchandise of other States, and this court will determine for itseft whether it is a genuine exercise of the police power or really and substantially a regulation of interstate commerce. Section 27 of Chap. 495 of the laws of Kansas of 1905, prohibiting the trans- portation of cattle from any point south of the State into the State except for immediate slaughter which have not been passed as healthy by the proper state officials or by the National Bureau of Animal Industry is a proper police regulation within the power of the State, is not in canfilct with t1?e act of February 2, 1903, 32 Star. 791, or the act of March 3,'1905, 33 Star. 1204, in regard to inspection of cattle, and is not unconstitu- tional as a direct regulation of interstate commerce. 60 Kans,, 51, affirmed. T?E facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. Archie D.. Neale and Mr. Nelson Co?e for plaintiff in error: A statute which prohibits the bringing of cattle into the State
�
