38 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOLL WEEVIL CONVENTION. 



or the owner is sufficiently compensated by sharing in the general 

 benefits resulting from the exercise of the police power." Am. and 

 Eng. Enc. of Law, vol. 22, p. 916. 



In the case of Bass vs. the State, 34 An., 494, the Supreme Court of 

 this State said : "There are cases where it becomes necessary for the 

 public authorities to interfere with control by individuals of their prop- 

 erty, and even to destroy it, when 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. Strong instances exist where it becomes necessary to 

 take, use or destroy the private property of individuals to prevent the 

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

 army or any other great public calamity. 



The laws passed for such purposes, it is well settled, though they may 

 disturb the enjoyment of individual rights, are not unconstitutional, 

 though no compensation is made. They do not appropriate private 

 property for public use, but simply regulate its enjoyment by the owner. 

 If he suffers injury, he is compensated in the theory of the law by 

 sharing in the general benefits which the regulations are intended or 

 calculated to secure. These regulations rest upon the maxim, salum 

 populi supremo, lex." 



This language was used in deciding a suit brought by Abraham Bass 

 against the State for the recovery of the sum of $75,000, the value of 

 his plantation which had been practically destroyed by the building 

 of a levee on the Mississippi River, under State authority, in the rear 

 of the plantation, so as to leave it entirely unprotected from overflow, 

 and thereby depriving him of its use and enjoyment. The Supreme 

 Court there decided that the action thus taken by the State was not 

 a taking of plaintiff's property for public purposes in the exercise 

 of the right of eminent domain for which he should be compensated, 

 but was an exercise of her police powers, and that the State owed no 

 compensation under the circumstances to the owner of the property. 



In the case of the New Orleans Gas Light Company vs. Hart, 40 An., 

 474, which was a suit brought to enjoin the removal by defendant 

 of certain lamp posts erected by plaintiff in the city of New Orleans, 

 and where one of the defenses made was that defendant had the right 

 to remove the posts under authority delegated to him by the city in 

 the exercise of her police power, the Supreme Court of this State 

 said : "The last objection to be considered is whether the city could 

 have exercised the right of removal of the obnoxious lampposts. That 

 right the city possesses as an inherent concomitant of the police power. 

 So far that power has not received a full and complete definition; 

 but it may be said to be the right of the State, or of a State functionary, 

 to prescribe regulations for the good order, peace, protection, com- 



