State Bee-Keepers' Association. 75 



IN THE SUPREME COURT. 



"Messrs. Crawford & Crawford, attorneys for the city, argued in favor 

 of the valaidity of the ordinance. 



"The following is the argument of the attorney of the National Bee- 

 Keepers' Union, Judge S.-W. Williams, of Little Rock, Ark., in the above 

 mentioned case, on an appeal to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, in the case 

 of the City of Arkadelphia vs. Z. A. Clark. 



"This case discloses a most flagrant violation of the property rights of 

 the citizen. It'seems that Clark, who lived in the outskirts of Arkadelphia, 

 a village of some two thousand inhabitants, scattered over territory enough 

 for one hundred thousand — a ruse in tirbe — had a few bees, as the record 

 shows (page i), 35 stands. This gave rise to a persecution unparalled since 

 the days of the boot and the thumb screw, to force Clark to give up his 

 property. 



"Those running the city at the time, not content to make a test case, 

 and have the question settled by this court— after passing this sweeping 

 ordinance, commenced a system of daily arrests, trials without jury, judg- 

 ments and imprisonments resulting in appeals; and this is one of the numer- 

 ous spawn of cases from the same oppressive hot-bed. ■ 



"At last Clark was compelled, at a great loss, to give up his property 

 and quit his business of bee raising and honey production in Arkadelphia — a 

 principal source of his support — as an alternative to indefinite imprisonment. 



"When the case came to the Circuit Court, one test case was tried, upon 

 motion to dismiss, and the court below held the ordinance void, because it 

 did more than regulate the keeping of property — it forbid the owning or 

 keeping a valuable and useful property in the town ; in effect holding that 

 the bee was per se, a nuisance. For if it was not, then its presence in a 

 town could not be prohibited by any law . 



"Before proceeding to argue the case, we call attention to the statement 

 of counsel, at page 9 of their brief, that it is a matter of common knowledge 

 that they are liable to sting children, etc. It is not a matter of common 

 knowledge, because it is not true, unless children molest them at their hives, 

 or catch them. But because a domestic insect may sting or hurt under 

 some circumstances, no more makes it a nuisance— /^r ^^— and liable to 

 prohibition, than the fact that a horse may kick, may run away m harness 

 and kill a child; or an ox may gore persons with its horns, would make these 

 animals nuisances />^r 5^. 



"I venture the assertion that there is not a town or city in the United 

 States where bees are not kept. I know they are now kept in Little Rock, 

 and have ever been. My nearest neighbors have them. I have kept them 

 in my yard while rearing a family of children, and I cannot recall any 

 instance of an injury from bees. I speak this in the line of common knowl 

 edge, which the court must recognize. 



