442 



"FHB SMERICMEf BEE JQWRKSEr. 



the formation and habits of bees, yet 

 it is true that many accepted these 

 ridiculous charges as tnith ! 



Mr. Clark was ordered to remove 

 his bees by June 6, 1887. He did not 

 remove them ; and on Jan. 2, 1888, he 

 was arrested; and fined, day after daj% 

 for ten successive days, for maintaining 

 a nuisance, by keeping his bees in the 

 suburbs of that city. 



Not paying the fines, Mr. Clark was 

 committed to the city jail, by order of 

 the Mayor. 



Mr. Clark being a member of the 

 " National Bee-Keepers' Union," very 

 naturally appealed to it for protection. 

 Being clearly in the right, and worthy 

 of defense, the " Union " engaged the 

 services of Major J. L. Witherspoon, 

 ex-Attorney-General of Arkansas, and 

 several other attorneys, to defend the 

 bees and their keeper. 



This case was important because it 

 was the first time that it was sought to 

 exterminate the bees from the suburbs 

 of a city, by declaring them a nui- 

 sance, by Ordinance. If allowed to 

 stand, it would be a precedent to be 

 followed, wherever a bee-keeper was 

 obnoxious to the ruling majority ; his 

 rights would be ignored, and the bees 

 condemned by ignorant and prejudiced 

 persons for selfish motives. 



The National Bee-Keepers' Union, 

 therefore, concluded to carry the case 

 to the Circuit Court, for it would be 

 very detrimental to the pursuit to al- 

 low an ordinance against bee-keeping 

 to remain uncontested, and to be 

 quoted as a precedent against the keep- 

 ing of bees, because it had been de- 

 clared ' ' a nuisance " by a City Council 

 in Arkansas. 



By the enforcement of that unlaw, 

 ful ordinance of the city, Mr. Clark 

 was deprived of his liberty, and the 

 constitutional rights guaranteed to 

 every citizen in the United States. 



Even granting that it was wrong in 

 Mr. Clark not to obey the city authori- 

 ties, he should have had a speedy trial 

 by an impartial jury — all of which 

 had been denied him. Even when 

 released under a writ of habeas corpus, 

 he was, within three hours, re-arrested 

 and fined. 



After demandino; a change of venue, 

 because of the prejudice of the Mayor, 

 that functionary again fined him, de- 

 nying him his constitutional rights. 



The Circuit Court convened in July, 

 1888, and the Hon. Sam W. Williams, 

 of Little Rock, was added to the at- 

 torney* for the Union. Our attornej^s. 

 Judges S. W. Williams, Witherspoon, 

 Murray and McMillan, made a motion 

 to dismiss the ease against Mr. Clark, 

 " because the ordinance of the City of 

 Arkadelphia, on which the prosecution 

 is founded, is void and in violation of 

 law." 



Then Judge S. W. Williams read 

 section after section of law, in Mr. 

 Clark's favor, showing that a man's 

 right to hold property is paramount to 

 all Legislative power ; and any at- 

 tempt to take away such right is un- 

 constitutional. 



After which. Judge Hearn stated to 

 the attorneys that he had lived a long 

 time in Arkadelphia, and that bees 

 had been kept there all the time, and 

 that he had not heard any complaint 

 until this case came up. He added 

 that the case would go to the Supreme 

 Court, no matter in which way it was 

 decided in his Court, and he wanted 

 to be found on the right side when 

 decided in the Supreme Court. 



He then sustained the motion of the 

 attorneys for the Union, to dismiss the 

 case, and he declared the ordinance 

 of the city " illegal and void .'" 



The city attorney then gave notice 

 of his appeal to the Supreme Court. 



The appeal to the Supreme Court 

 was heard on June 22, 1889. 



Messrs. Crawford & Crawford, at- 

 torneys for the city, argued in favor 

 of the validity of the ordinance. Their 

 argument may be summed up thus : 



In Huckenstein's Appeal, 70, Penn., St., 

 103, s. c, 10, Am. Rei)t. 669, supra, it was 

 said, " If a man lives in town, of necessity, 

 he must submit to the consequences of the 

 obligations ot trades, which may be carried 

 on in his immediate neighborhood, which 

 are actually necessary for trade and com- 

 merce, also for the enjoyment of the inhabi- 

 tants of the town." However convenient 

 for Appellee to own, keep and raise bees in 

 the City of Arkadelphia, it cannot be con- 

 tended that the business is at all necessary 

 for trade and commerce, the enjoyment of 

 property, or for the benefit of the inhabi- 

 tants of the city. His busness can be car- 

 ried on just as successfully at a distance 

 from the city, without interfering with the 

 comfort and convenience of its inhabitants. 



Bill Nye, in a recent communication to 

 the press, tells of a Mr. Joseph Lininger, 

 near Huntington, Ind.. who has established 

 there a "Skunk ranch," and is doing a very 

 profitable business in that line. Should he 

 conclude to move his ranch into the City of 

 Arkadelphia, he could object to having his 

 business declared a nuisance, with as much 

 show of right, as the Appellee now main- 

 tains. 



" There is no common right to do that, 

 which, by a valid law, or ordinance, is pro- 

 hibited ; and courts will not declare an au- 

 thorized ordinance void because it prohibits 

 what otherwise might lawfully be done." 



It is contended that this ordinance is in- 

 valid, because, instead of regulating the 

 keeping of bees, it prohibited the business 

 altogether. We can see how the City could 

 regulate the keeping of goats, dogs, hogs 

 and cows, but it would be impossible to 

 pass an ordinance allowing bees to be kept 

 within the corporation, and at the same time 

 regulate the business so as to prevent tliem 

 from flying abroad. You cannot build a 

 wall high enough to keep the bee from 

 ranging. Suppose an ordinance should be 

 passed, allowing the owning, keeping and 

 raising of bees in the city, but prohibiting 

 anyone, under the penalty of a fine, from 

 allowing his bees to fly in the streets, or 

 trespass upon other people's premises. Such 

 an ordinance, with the condition annexed, 

 would deprive Appellee of the claimed 



right, and would be a kind of Legislative 

 juggling that would 



" Keep the word of promise to the ear. 

 And break it to the nope." 



This ordinance in this case would not 

 have been a whit better if it had allowed 

 every citizen to keep one or more hives of 

 bees. If one hive would not be a nuisance, 

 how many would be ? Where is the line to 

 be drawn ? We contend that the City Coun- 

 cil ought to be, and is, the only proper 

 judge, and its action will be final, unless it 

 has clearly exceeded its authority in the 

 passage of the ordinance. 



Among the abstract of decisions, 

 prepared for the Arkansas Gazette by 

 W. H. Pembertou, of the Little Rock 

 Bar, dated Saturday, June 22, 1889, 

 we find the following opinion by the 

 Court : 



127 (Crim.) City of Arkadelphia fs. Z. 



A. Clark. 



The Appellee Clark was convicted in 

 the Mayor's Court of Arkadelphia for a 

 violation of the city ordinance. The 

 ordinance under the prosecution was 

 had provided that it shall be unlawful 

 for any person or persons to own, keep 

 or raise bees in the City of Arkadel- 

 phia, the same having been declared a 

 nuisance. Upon an appeal to the 

 Circuit Court, that Court sustained a 

 demurrer filed by the defendant, and 

 dismissed the prosecution. 



Held. — Neither the keeping, owning 

 or raising of bees is in itself a nui- 

 sance. Bees may become a nuisance 

 in a city, but whether they are so or 

 not, is a question to be judicially de- 

 termined in each case. 



The ordinance under consideration 

 undertakes to make each of the acts 

 named a nuisance, without regard to 

 the fact whether it is so or not, or 

 whether bees in general have become 

 a nuisance in the city. It is therefore 

 too broad, and invalid. 



Affirmed. 



The reply of Judge Williams was 

 lately given in full, because of its great 

 importance and value for reference. 

 Thomas G. Newman, 



General Manager. 



ZOOLOGICAL. 



Ravages of the Orain Plant 



Liouse, Incorrectly Called 



"Crecn Midse." 



BY PROF. A. J. COOK. 



Friend Newman : — Having received 

 many letters about this insect, asking 

 for replies in the American Bee Jour- 

 N.VL, I send j'ou the following, being 

 Bulletin Ni>. 50, published by the 

 " Agricultural College of Michigan," 

 which I wri>te for the Experimental 

 Station on June 27, 1889. This will 



