212 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY [Vol. 5 



and prosperity of the state: Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal. 226; Train v. Boston Disinfecting 

 Co., 144 Mass. 523, 59 Am. Rep. 113." (p. 673.) 



The law in question here is of the same character as are the quarantine laws, 

 pertaining to Texas cattle and splenic fever, which the legislature has enacted for 

 the purpose of preventing the infection of cattle and other live stock. It falls within 

 the miscellaneous cases referred to by Judge Cooley in his Constitutional Limita- 

 tions, as follows: 



"And there are other cases where it becomes necessary for the public authorities 

 to interfere with the control by individuals of their property, and even to destroy it, 

 where the owners themselves have fully observed all their duties to their fellows and 

 to the State, but where, nevertheless, some controlling public necessity demands 

 the interference or destruction. A strong instance of this description is where it 

 becomes necessary to take, use, or destroy the private property of individuals to 

 prevent the spreading of a fire, the ravages of a pestilence, the advance of a hostile 

 army, or any other great public calamity. Here the individual is in no degree in 

 fault, but his interest must yield to that 'necessity' which 'knows no law.' " (Cooley, 

 Constitutional Limitations, 7th ed., p. 878.) 



Cases sometimes arise where the exigencies of the situation require private property 

 to be destroyed immediately in order to prevent the spread of pestilence or some 

 other calamity, and where, under all circumstances, the loss which the individual 

 suffers is so inconsiderable in comparison with the benefit to the public that in the 

 opinion of the legislature he is regarded as fully compensated by his individual share 

 in the benefit accruing to the public. Other cases will arise where it is apparent that 

 if no action is taken by the State the property of the individual will be destroyed 

 or rendered of little or no value. In Shafford v. Brown, 49 Was. 307, 95 Pac. 270, 

 the supreme court of Washington had under consideration a statute giving power 

 to a county fruit inspector to destroy fruit infected with insects and held that the 

 owner of such fruit had no cause of action against the inspector for damages for its 

 destruction for the reason that it had no value. 



It is true that in some of the laws providing for the abatement of nuisances the 

 legislature has made provision for compensation to the individual for the loss of 

 his property where it has been destroyed. Thus the statute authorizing the live 

 stock sanitary commissioner, when, in his opinion, it shall be necessary, to prevent 

 the spread of any contagious or infectious disease among the live stock of this state, 

 to destroy animals with, or which may have been exposed to certain diseases, provides 

 that he shall first cause the animals to be appraised (Gen. Statutes 1909, Sec. 9138) 

 and the owner is to be paid the value as fixed by the appraisement ; but the statute 

 expressly provides that this right of indemnity for such loss shall not extend to cases 

 where such animals have been brought into the state in a diseased condition or 

 from an infected district or state or brought into the state in violation of any law 

 or quarantine regulation, or to cases where the owner has violated the quarantine 

 law or disregarded any regulation of the sanitary live stock commissioner, nor to 

 any case where the animal came into the possession of the claimant with knowledge 

 that it was diseased or had been exposed to contagion. (Gen. Stat. 1909, Sec. 9143.) 

 The same statute (Sec. 9139) provides that in fixing the value of any such animal 

 the commissioner shall be governed by the value thereof at the date of the appraise- 

 mefit, so that the state does not undertake to compensate the owner for any loss 

 occasioned by the disease or infection. And for some reason which the legislature 

 deemed sufficient it is further provided in the same section as follows: "That no 

 animal or animals shall be appraised except those affected with contagious pleuro- 

 pneumonia of cattle or foot-and-mouth disease or such as have been exposed thereto." 

 The legislature acted upon the theory that in the exercise of the police power for 



