? OCTOBER TERM, lit07. them free from infections, contagious or communicable dis- ease, "such anim?h so inspected and certified may be shipped, driven, or transported . . . into . . . any State or Territory . without further inspection or the exaction of fees of any kind, except such as may at any time be Srdered or exacted by the Secretary of Agriculture," There can be no doubt that this is the supreme law, s?d if the state law con- filets with it the state law must yield. But the law of Kansas now before us recognizes the supremacy of the national law and conforms to it. The state law admits cattle inspected and certified by an inspector of the Bureau of Animal Induct. ry of the United States, thus avoiding a conflict with the national law. Rule 13, issued by the Secretary of Agriculture under the authority of the statute, is brought to our attention by the plaintiff in error. It is enough to say now that the rule is directed to transportation of cattle from quarantined States, which is not this case, and that in terms it recognizes restric- tions imposed by the State of destination. Our attention is called to no other provision of national law which conflicts with the state law before us, and we have discovered none. THOMAS v. STATE OF IOWA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA.' No. ?$. "A?med F?oru?ry 2?, 190?--Decided M?reh ?, 1? ? ? ?ve t?s ? ju?iction under .? 7?, Rev. Stat., W ? ' �e ju?nt d a ? ?, ?e F?e? quition mus? ? disfinc?y ? ? the ? ?, ?d a me? c?m, w?ch ?oun? ? no more ? a ?e ?d inf? ?tion ?at a ?ght under ?e ?tu- ?on of the Uni? S? ? ?n de?, is not s?ci?t?d ? ? ? ? ?p?on ? ? ? ?n p? of the ch? to the j? ? in ?t th? dep?v? ?e ? of ? li?y ?thou? due ? of law.
�
