662 IOWA DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE 



either recover the specific bees or their value, the same as may be done 

 for the recovery of any other personal property. 



Having now partially described the property rights in bees we will next 

 turn to the criminal liabilities as applied to bees. 



Many of the state legislatures have considered passing an act making 

 it a crime to poison bees, and some have passed such acts. Section 1247, 

 Revised Statutes of Kentucky, provides that if any person on land or 

 premises not in his possession or under his control shall lay or expose 

 any poisonous substance with intent to destroy honey bees he shall be 

 fined not less than five nor more than fifty dollars. Section 7161 of the 

 Statutes of the State of Washington is much similar to the Kentucky 

 statute except that it includes unlawful or malicious killing as well as 

 poisoning, and places the fine at no less than ten dollars or more than 

 one hundred dollars. Many other states prosecute poisoning or malicious 

 killing of bees but it is done under some general statute such as our 

 statute of malicious destruction of property. It is a well established fact 

 that a person has no more right to destroy the bees of another than to 

 destroy any other property of another. 



It is, indeed, probable that in every state in the United States a per- 

 son could be prosecuted under some form of larceny for the stealing and 

 carrying away of any hive or other contrivance containing honey or 

 honey bees. However, the legislature of the state of Ohio has passed the 

 following special statute applying to bees. Revised Statute of 1890', sec- 

 tion 6840, provides that "whoever unlawfully enters the premises of an- 

 other for the purpose of disturbing or carrying away any box, gum or 

 vessel containing bees or honey, or injuring or carrying away any such 

 property shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned 

 not more than sixty days or both. The state of Nebraska passed a simi- 

 lar statute in 1879, section 81, which also includes poisoning or malicious 

 destruction of bees as well as the stealing, but the fine shall not exceed 

 one hundred dollars and such person shall be confined in the county 

 jail not less than ten nor more than thirty days, and such person shall 

 be liable to the party injured in double the value of the property stolen, 

 injured or destroyed. The state of Connecticut has a statute which dif- 

 fers from the statutes of any of the other states which I have examined. 

 It (section 1460) provides that every person who shall place upon the 

 premises of another any tub, box or other contrivance for the purpose of 

 enticing swarms of bees from the premises of their lawful owners shall 

 be fined not more than seven dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty 

 days. 



It would be possible to enumerate many statutes from other states whicli 

 would in some manner protect the industry of bee keeping, but I feel that 

 from our discussion so far we can readily determine that it is the thought 

 and aim of the public in general to foster and protect the industry of 

 bee keeping just as completely as any other legitimate industry, and in 

 some ways there has been an unusual amount of attention given to legis- 

 lation which is applicable only to the industry of bee keeping. Yet I feel 

 that this can be easily explained, and that explanation is that the bee is 

 so much different in every respect from any other living thing which is 

 treated as domestic animals, that special legislation must naturally follow. 



Having now shown that bees are considered under practically the same 

 rules of law as any other property, it must naturally follow that the 

 owner of bees is also liable for any damages caused by his bees. 



We have very few decisions by the Supreme Court of Iowa on the 

 subject of bees but I have found two Iowa cases in which I think our Su- 

 preme Court has given some very good opinions regarding the rights and 

 liabilities of bee keepers, and with your indulgence I will read a portion of 

 these opinions. In the case of the State of Iowa vs. Victor Repp, reported 

 in the 104 Iowa, page 305, we find the following discussion: "Wild game 

 is under the control of the state, and only becomes the subject of private 

 ownership when reclaimed by the art and industry of man. A somewhat 



