78 First Annual Report 



the Supreme Court of Michigan, January i8, 1889, and is reported and com- 

 mented on in the Albany Law Journal, March 9, 1889, with approval. 



"In that case there was much more pretense for the power than there is 

 in this case; for bees are not named — and the power is claimed here under 

 the general power to prevent injury or annoyance, etc. Mansfield's Digest 

 Sec. 751. 



"An ordinance of Grand Rapids which forbade the marching, parading, 

 riding er driving upon public streets with musical instruments, banners, flags, 

 torches, flambeaux, or while singing or shouting, without the mayor's per- 

 mission, was void, as prohibiting a thing lawful in itself, and leaving it to an 

 unregulated official discietion. See Frazee's case, 63 Michigan, 396. 



"All ordinances arbitrary in their terms, and unreasonable and unnec- 

 essarily abridging private rights, are void . I Dillon Municipal Corporation, 

 Sec. 253. Clinton vs. Phillips, 58 Illinois, 102, Kip vs. Patterson, 26 N. J. 

 Law 298. Commissioner vs. Gas Co. 12 Penn. St. 318. Commonwealth 

 vs. Robertson, 5 Gush, 438. 



"This ordinance not only does not come within the power granted, but 

 it is also unreasonable and unwarranted, either is sufficient to make it void. 

 Lynn vs. Free Mason Building Association, 9 Central Reporter, 360 



'Municipalities only have such powers as are expressly granted to them 

 or such as are necessary to carry those powers into effect. United States vs. 

 Ludlow, 9 Central Reporter, 517. Johnson vs. District of Columbia, 9 Cen- 

 tral Reporter, 653. It is well settled that the general power to prevent an- 

 noyance does not give power to declare everything which may annoy or 

 arouse the fears of the sensitive— a nuisance . Nor does the existence of that 

 fact give power to prohibit . See authorities above cited . 



"It is equally well settled that a city cannot under general power, declare 

 that a nuisance which is not so in fact. Des Plaines vs. Poyer, 12 Western 

 Reporter, 760. Stockton Laundry Case 26 Federal Reporter, 611 — where it 

 is held that an ordinance is unconstitutional and void which forbid a laundry 

 in the heart of the city; yet a drying up of sinking soap-suds might become 

 dangerous to health and annoy; and infected clothing would be more frequent 

 than bee-stings. See also 9 Pacific Reporter, 141. 



"Mr. Wood, in his work on 'Nuisance,' in the index at page 1021, refers 

 to bees with a reference to title — Dangerous Animals. Under that head, at 

 page 1025, he refers to cases of animals which by their owners, may be 

 known to injure, referring to page 871 ei seq., which recognizes fully the 

 right to keep animals subject to responsibility {on scienter) for injuries by 

 those known to be of vicious character. 



"Strangely enough, of all the cases cited, not an instance of injury by 

 'the little busy bee,' or the silk worm is found, showing how harmless these 

 little insects really are. The habits, of the bee lead it to wood, field and 

 orchard for pasture, and if it enters a house it is because carelessness has 



