PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOLL WEEVIL CONVENTION. 4! 



Camfield vs. United States, 167 U. S. is a case where the extent 

 to which the police power of a State may go was discussed, and it 

 was there held, referring to a decision of the Supreme Judicial Court 

 of Massachusetts, that "the case is authority for the proposition that 

 the police power is not subject to any definite limitations, but is co- 

 extensive with the necessities of the * case .and the safeguard of the 

 public interests." P. 524. 



From my examination of numerous authorities, as well as text writers 

 on the subject, I have reached the conclusion that the use of property 

 is to be distinguished from property itself, and that this use or right 

 of enjoyment is held subject to the police power of the State, to be 

 entirely taken away if necessary, without compensating the owner 

 therefor. 



My opinion, therefore, is that if there has arisen- such an emergency 

 as, in the exercise of a wise discretion by the Legislature, would justify 

 it in prohibiting the cultivation of cotton upon lands lying along the 

 Sabine River or elsewhere in this State, in order to prevent the intro- 

 duction into the cotton fields of the State of the boll weevil, and that 

 steps should be taken to prevent the weevil from getting into the State, 

 it would have the right to enact suitable laws for that purpose, if neces- 

 sary to accomplish that object, in the exercise of the police power of the 

 State ; and this without any corresponding obligation on the part of the 

 State to compensate the owners of such property for any injury sustained 

 by them by reason of their being deprived of the use of their property 

 in the growing and raising of cotton thereon. 



In order to justify such legislation, the injury threatened by the boll 

 weevil must be so great as to make it reasonably necessary to resort to 

 such stringent measures, otherwise the State cannot deprive the owners 

 of the use of their property without compensation for such injury as 

 may be sustained by them by reason of the deprivation. Besides, the 

 Legislature can only justify such interference with the property rights 

 of these owners in the exercise of the police power of the State while 

 the necessity lasts, for it is the necessity which furnishes the justifi- 

 cation, so that if the necessity no longer exists the right thus exercised 

 ceases. 



Second The next question to be answered is, whether the Legislature 

 may enact suitable laws to prohibit and prevent the shipments into or 

 through the State of cotton, cotton seed, etc., from the State of Texas or 

 elsewhere, where the boll weevil may exist. 



The right of a State to enact and enforce quarantine laws, in order to 

 prevent the introduction of infectious or contagious diseases, whether 

 brought from a foreign country or from one of the other States of the 

 Union, has been recognized and upheld by an unbroken line of authority. 



In the Passenger Cases, 7 Howard, p. 414, the Supreme Court of the 



