154 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 



which is strong enough to justify regulation may 

 not be strong enough to justify destruction or con- 

 fiscation without compensation.'"'^ The destruc- 

 tion of sound property without compensation 

 would be unconstitutional^*' Dead animals and 

 garbage may have a property value, yet the rights 

 of property of the individual have been held subor- 

 dinate to the general good, and the confiscation 

 and destruction of such property without com- 

 pensation to the individual owner has been repeat- 

 edly upheld.^" Milk which has not been produced 

 in accordance with the requirements of a city still 

 has commercial value. Nevertheless, when an 

 attempt has been made to bring such milk into 

 the city it has been repeatedly held that the city 

 is justified in seizing the milk and destroying it.^^ 

 Animals afflicted with infectious diseases are 

 nuisances. The disease germ is a nuisance per se 

 and as such the community demands its extermi- 

 nation. Unfortunately it is so intimately asso- 

 ciated with the animal which has a property value 

 that its extermination may involve the destruc- 

 tion of the animal, as in the case of anthrax, 

 according to our present knowledge. The animal 

 infected with the disease is a nuisance in esse, and 

 as such is subject to such reasonable restriction 



csFreund, Police Power, 517. cs Blazier v. Miller, 10 Him, 



06 Pearson v. Zehr, 138 111. 435; Deems v. Mayor, 80 Md. 



48; Miller v. Horton, 152 Mass. 164; Shivers v. Newton, 45 N. 



540. J. L. 469; Nelson v. Minne- 



c7 California Bed. Co. v. Sani- apolis, 112 Minn. 16 ; Adams v 



taryEed. Works, 199 U. S. 306; Milwaukee, 144 Wis. 371, 129 



Gardner v. Mich., 199 U. S. N. W. 518; Adams v. Milwaii- 



325; McGehee, Due Process of kee, 228 U. S. 572. 



Law, 336; Public Health, 



450. 



