PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOLL WEEVIL CONVENTION. 37 



tending from the northern to the southern boundary of the State, upon 

 which the growing of cotton is to be prohibited, either altogether or 

 for a fixed period of time, and the 



Second is: Whether the Legislature of this State has the power, 

 right and authority to prohibit the shipment into or through the State 

 of cotton and cotton seed, etc., from the State of Texas, or other 

 places where the boll weevil may exist. 



First That the State, in the exercise of her sovereign power, has the 

 right to take private property whenever necessary for public purposes, 

 or for the proper exercise of governmental functions, is so well recog- 

 nized and established as no longer to need the citation of authority 

 in support of the proposition. This right, known as the right of emi- 

 nent domain, to be exercised by the State, through her Legislature, is 

 conditioned, however, upon the payment of just compensation to the 

 owner of the property so taken, our Constitution article 167 of the 

 Constitution of 1898 declaring that "private property shall not be taken 

 nor damaged for public purposes without just and adequate compen- 

 sation being first paid." 



Again, it must be conceded that the State has the right, not only 

 to suppress nuisances, but to regulate the use and enjoyment of private 

 property by the owner, in order thereby to promote the general 

 welfare of the public, or to forbid its use entirely for certain purposes 

 hurtful to the health, comfort or convenience of the public. This 

 power, residing in the State in her sovereign capacity, known as the 

 police power of the State, may be exercised whenever the necessity 

 may arise for its exercise and without compensation to the owner of 

 the property thus deprived of its use and enjoyment. 



In the one case, where the power of the State, in the exercise of 

 the right of eminent domain, is exerted, the property of the owner is 

 taken by the State, for a public purpose, on compensating the owner 

 for the same, while in the other instance, where the police power of 

 the State is exercised, there is no taking of property for public purposes, 

 but a mere deprivation of use or enjoyment by the owner in the in- 

 terest and for the welfare of the public. The distinction between the 

 police power of the State and the right of eminent domain lies in 

 this, "that in the exercise of the latter right private property is taken 

 for public use, and the owner is invariably entitled to compensation 

 therefor, while the police power is usually exerted merely to regulate 

 the use and enjoyment by the owner, or, if he is deprived of his prop- 

 erty outright, it is not taken for public use, but rather destroyed in 

 order to promote the general welfare of the public and in 

 neither case is the owner entitled to any compensation for any 

 injury which" he may sustain in consequence thereof, for the 

 law considers that either the injury is damnum absque injurm 



