?0? U.S. Opinion of ths Courk trial court charged the jury that it made no difference whether they were or were not diseased, and the Supreme Court of Kansas a?'eed with the trial court. Whether an article is or is not a subject of lawful interstate commerce de?nJ? upon the intrinsic state or condition of the article, and not upon a mere declaration of a s?ate legislature. In re Ro. hrer, 140 U. S. 545. ?his statute being a regulation of commerce under the guise of an inspection law, cannot be upheld, but must be condemned. State o! Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S. 313; B?qrnrner v. Rebman, U.S. 99, 105. Mr. E. L. Burton, Mr. C. E. P/k and Mr. W. B. G/asze for defendant in error: The regulation of the fights and duties of all persons within the jurisdiction of a State belongs primarily to such State under its reserved power to guard the safety of persons and property within its borders, and even where the subject of such regula- tions is one over which Congress exereis?s exelnsive control, any action of the State upon the subject which is not a direct interference with rights secured by the Constitution of the United States or by some valid ast of 'Congress must be re- spected until Congress intervenes. Patap?co Guano Co. v. Board o! Agricultur? o[ North Carolina, 171 U.S. 345; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S. 313; M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Haber, 169 U.S. U.S. 501; Kamrn'ish v. Ball, 129 U.S. 217, and cases cited. MR. JUSTICE MOODY delivered the opinion of the court. A statute of the State of Kansas makes it a m?lc?mcano?., 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 hay-
�
