RELATION OF THE LAW TO PUBLIC HEALTH 285 



to St. Louis, 375 miles, required from eight to eighteen and one half 

 days. Then Missouri caused 107 barrels of the Bacillus prodigiosus to 

 be put into the drainage canal near the starting point on November 6, 

 On December 4, one of these bacilli was found at the St. Louis Intake 

 Tower, and a few others later. The duration of life of this bacillus in 

 sunlight in living water, being alleged to be about the same as that of 

 the Bacillus typhosus, it was urged that the typhus bacillus in the 

 sewage of Chicago could reacli St. Louis. But Illinois contended that 

 typhoid bacilli could live only for three or four days, and so the repre- 

 sentatives of Illinois suspended in the Illinois Eiver, sacs which water 

 could penetrate. In these sacs were bacilli of typhoid and in three or 

 four days there were no living typhoid bacilli in the sacs. Illinois 

 therefore claimed that they had died, to which Missouri replied that the 

 constant change of water made conditions different, that these bacilli 

 may have been of less than normal strength, or that they may have 

 escaped from the sacs. On all the evidence the court held that it was 

 not sufficiently clear that a nuisance existed and the bill was dismissed 

 without prejudice to the right of Missouri to commence over again if 

 it believed that it had evidence strong enough to prove its case. 



If under the law, the alleged acts are a nuisance and if there is legal 

 evidence to prove the facts, one additional question remains, that of 

 procedure. What remedy is to be applied? The ingenuity of lawyers 

 has been taxed to the utmost in devising remedies for nuisances. So 

 difficult is it at times to succeed in ending a nuisance that the law 

 provides as many remedies for nuisance, perhaps more remedies, than 

 for any other form of injury, an entire arsenal of weapons, some public, 

 some private, civil and criminal, judicial and non-judicial, legal and 

 equitable, and sometimes all are required. 



First there is the right of abatement. The law is jealous about per- 

 mitting parties to remedy injuries with their own hands, but if the 

 existence of a nuisance is clear, then one may himself put an end to it. 

 The person who thus makes his own determination of right acts at his 

 peril, and is liable if he has made a mistake. When abatement is 

 threatened, if the case is doubtful the courts will forbid the use of this 

 method, and unless there is pressing necessity, it should seldom be 

 resorted to, particularly by private individuals. 



The injured person may bring an action to recover compensation in 

 money for his injuries and very frequently this remedy is selected. 

 But as it does not put an end to the nuisance, it does not aid the cause 

 of public health, unless the defendant voluntarily abates the nuisance 

 through fear of further pecuniary loss. 



The plaintiff may prefer to ask the court to prohibit the defendant 

 from continuing the nuisance. Such relief is called equitable as distin- 

 guished from compensation in money, and this form of relief by injunc- 



