208 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY [Vol. 5 



SYLLABUS BY THE COURT. 

 PORTER, J. 



1. The statute creating the Entomological Commission and pro- 

 viding for the extermination of San Jose scale and other orchard pests 

 (Gen. Stat. 1901, ch. 108, art. 43) is a valid exercise of the police 

 power. 



2. The statute is not invalid because it delegates to the commission 

 the power to declare the existence of conditions which call into opera- 

 tion the provisions of the statute. 



3. The legislature may declare that to be a nuisance which is detri- 

 mental to the health, morals, peace, or welfare of its citizens, and may 

 confer power upon local boards or tribunals to exercise the pohce 

 power of the state when in the judgment of such tribunals the condi- 

 tions exist which the legislature has declared constitute such nuisance. 



4. Nor is the statute in question unconstitutional on the ground 

 that it provides for taking private property without due process of 

 law. It rests wholly with the legislature whether, in the exercise of 

 its power of police regulation, the individual whose property is destroyed 

 shall receive compensation therefor. 



5. The statute is designed to protect and promote the horticultural 

 interests of the state and, in effect, makes all orchards, trees, shrubs, 

 and plants, infested with the pests mentioned in the statute public 

 nuisances, and being a proper exercise of the police power is not uncon- 

 stitutional because it authorizes the expense of abating such nuisance 

 to be charged against the property of the owner. 



6. Nor is the statute unconstitutional because no separate tribunal 

 is provided by which the owner may contest the amount of expense 

 which shall be charged against his property. The act requires notice 

 to be served upon the owner stating the amount of expense incurred 

 by the Commission and notifying him that unless such expense be 

 paid within twenty days the same will be taxed against his property. 

 Held, that, ample notice being provided which gives property owner 

 an opportunity to question the amount of such expense in an action 

 in any court of competent jurisdiction before his property is affected, 

 he is afforded due process of law. 



7. The lien given by the statute upon premises for the expense of 

 abating such nuisance thereon is not for a delinquent tax but for indebt- 

 edness due the county and the provision authorizing such expense to 

 be collected as other taxes are collected is not obnoxious to any con- 

 stitutional inhibition. 



All the Justices concurring. 

 A true cop5\ Attest: 



Clerk Supreme Court. 



