154 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 
which is strong enough to justify regulation may 
not be strong enough to justify destruction or con- 
fiscation without compensation.’’°> The destruc- 
tion of sound property without compensation 
would be unconstitutional.** Dead animals and 
garbage may have a property value, yet the rights 
of property of the individual have been held subor- 
dinate to the general good, and the confiscation 
and destruction of such property without com- 
pensation to the individual owner has been repeat- 
edly upheld.*7 Milk which has not been produced 
in accordance with the requirements of a city still 
has commercial value. Nevertheless, when an 
attempt has been made to bring such milk into 
the city it has been repeatedly held that the city 
is justified in seizing the milk and destroying it.*8 
Animals afflicted with infectious diseases are 
nuisances. The disease germ is a nuisance per se 
and as such the community demands its extermi- 
nation. Unfortunately it is so intimately asso- 
ciated with the animal which has a property value 
that its extermination may involve the destruc- 
tion of the animal, as in the case of anthrax, 
according to our present knowledge. The animal 
infected with the disease is a nuisance in esse, and 
as such is subject to such reasonable restriction 
65 Freund, Police Power, 517. 
66 Pearson v. Zehr, 138 Ill. 
48; Miller v. Horton, 152 Mass. 
540, 
67 California Red. Co. v. Sani- 
tary Red. Works, 199 U. S. 306; 
Gardner v. Mich, 199 U. &. 
325; McGehee, Due Process of 
Law, 336; Pusiic HEALTH, 
450. 
68 Blazier v. Miller, 10 Hun, 
435; Deems v. Mayor, 80 Md. 
164; Shivers v. Newton, 45 N. 
J. L. 469; Nelson v. Minne- 
apolis, 112 Minn. 16; Adams v 
Milwaukee, 144 Wis. 371, 129 
N. W. 518; Adams v. Milwau- 
kee, 228 U. 8. 572. 
