750 



THE MONTHLY BULLETIN. 



lost. Furthermore, the excuse that the ordinance would not be upheld 

 in the courts, for experience had proven that such was the case in many 

 instances, was a talking point for the negligent landowner and a loop- 

 hole for an inefficient inspector. There were, however, a great many 

 ranchers who always abided by the ruling that it was better to pay for 

 the killing than for lawsuits or lying to the inspector. 



In 1889 damage from ground squirrels was very severe, complaints 

 coming from all over California. Alameda and Contra Costa County 

 residents were up in arms, which resulted in a joint meeting of the 

 boards of supervisors in April, 1889, as a consequence of which it was 

 agreed that a new ordinance be tried out, which when presented to 

 the District Attorney in August, was commented upon by his office as 

 conceding too strongly that the squirrel was a nuisance. He suggested 

 that this matter be allowed to go before the courts, in which case a 

 final decision could be obtained. The ordinance adopted by the Contra 

 Costa board to take effect on November 30, 1889, came before the 

 Supreme Court in 1890, with the result that it was declared unconsti- 

 tutional. From the decision we take the following comment: 



4k It (the ordinance) is certainly a most effective means of abating a nuisance, 

 viz, the squirrels, and bringing about a very desirable end. We regret exceed- 

 ingly that we can not see our way clear to uphold and enforce such an 

 important ... and original piece of legislation. Indeed, it would give us great 

 pleasure to see the power here assumed applied to snakes, tarantulas, ants, flies, 

 fleas and other reptiles, insects and pests which tend to make man's life a burden, 

 and to have it exercised and enforced in every county in the state. But we 

 are unable to see by what right or authority of law a board of supervisors 

 can impose upon a landowner the burden and expense of exterminating animals 

 terrw naturw on his own laud or elsewhere. * * * We know of no law 

 which can be held to authorize a board of supervisors to enact such an ordinance, 

 and we are quite clear that it can not be enforced for the reason that it is 

 unreasonable and burdensome in the extreme. Let the petitioner be discharged." 



The ordinance was one typical of the day, declaring squirrels a 

 nuisance, calling for extermination within 90 days and making violator 

 guilty of misdemeanor. The violator in this case was lodged in jail 

 in default of fine. No lien proceedings were instituted. The regretta- 

 ble feature of this decision is that all ordinances were for the time 

 disorganized, for every district attorney who looked upon such ordinance 

 enforcement as a disagreeable job, crept behind the Supreme Court 

 decision. Result was a period of comparative inactivity against squir- 

 rels from the legal side, and county supervisors were advised not to tie 

 up to an unconstitutional ordinance. Fortunately, it has been proved 

 that ground squirrels can be exterminated far more easily than weeds, 

 which the decision admits can be controlled, consequently the excuse 

 that man has no power to control wild beasts is without force any 

 longer. 



Evidently squirrels were making themselves noticeable in San Benito 

 County in 1889 as well as elsewhere, for a stringent ordinance was 

 passed, a paragraph of which is here quoted : 



"Any owner or occupant of lands, whose lands are free from squirrels or 

 gophers, or who is endeavoring to destroy the same on his own lands, may 

 give notice to the owners or occupants of adjoining lands whose lands are infested 

 with squirrels or gophers, and who is not using due diligence, nor endeavoring 

 to destroy said animals, to immediately commence the destruction thereof. And 

 if said owner or occupant of said lands so infested does not comply with said 

 demand within ten days thereafter, then the person giving said notice, or his 



158 



