1932] 
SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS 47 
owners or, on their refusal, by the commissioner. In upholding the validity 
of this statute, the court said : 
The destruction of a tree affected with a disease of that character, without compensa- 
tion to the owner and against his will, is as fully within the police power of the State 
as the destruction of a house threatened by a spreading conflagration or the clothes of 
a person who has fallen the victim of smallpox. Such property is not taken for public 
use. It is destroyed because, in the judgment of those to whom the law has confided 
the power of decision, it is of no use and is a source of public danger. 
The case of Louisiana State Board v. Tanzmann (148 S. W., 1176), in 1912, 
involved a statute giving the State entomologist power to take charge of an 
orchard infected with a dangerous disease, without any request from the prop- 
erty owner, and either to treat it or destroy it, without compensation to the 
owner. In upholding the validity of this statute the court said that the destruc- 
tion of such trees is not the taking of private property for a public purpose 
without due process of law but is a competent exercise of the police power of 
the State. 
The case of Wallace v. Dohner (165 N. E., 552), in 1929, involved an Indiana 
statute, which authorized the State conservation department to make rules and 
regulations for the enforcement of the State law for the prevention of plant 
disease and pests. Under this authorization, an order was issued which quar- 
antined certain sections of the State as infested with the corn borer and 
required all corn in the infested area to be cut and burned or completely buried. 
The court held (1) that the legislation was within the police power of the 
State, and (2) that the order was reasonable and within the authority delegated 
to the conservation department by the statute. 
(B) In the matter of preventing the spread of noxious vegetation 
(1) Federal courts 
The case of the District of Columbia v. Green (29 App. D. C. 296), in 1907, 
involved an act of Congress of March 1, 1899, which required an owner of land 
in the city of Washington to remove therefrom any weeds more than 4 inches 
in height, when directed to do so by the health department. The court held that 
the subject matter of the act was within the police power which Congress may 
exercise in the District of Columbia. 
The case of M. K. & T. Ry. Co. v. May (194 U. S. 267), in 1904, involved a 
Texas statute prohibiting any railroad company from permitting Johnson grass 
to go to seed on its right of way. In upholding the validity of this act, the 
court held that the prohibition did not so clearly deny to the railroad company 
the equal protection of the law as to be a violation of the fourteenth amendment 
to the Constitution. 
The case of Ch., T. H. & S. G. Ry. Co. v. Anderson (242 U. S. 283), in 1916, 
involved an Indiana statute which required every railroad company between 
July 1 and August 20 of each year to cut down all thistles and weeds on land 
which the company occupied. The court held that the statute was valid " under 
the doctrine of the May case." 
(2) State courts 
The case of Wedemeyer v. Crouch (122 Pac. 366), in 1912, involved a Wash- 
ington statute which declared certain weeds to be noxious and required land- 
owners to cut them down and prescribed that if, on notice from the road super- 
visor, the owner should fail to do so, the supervisor should do it and the cost 
should be made a tax on the land. The court held that this was a valid police 
regulation and not in conflict with any provision of the State or Federal Consti- 
tution. 
The case of State r. Boehm (100 N. W. 95), in 1904, involved a Minnesota 
statute which declared certain weeds to be nuisances and imposed a penalty on 
any owner of private lands who neglected or refused to remove or destroy such 
weeds, after notice from the legally designated official. The court held this to 
be a valid exercise of the police power of the State. 
The case of St. Louis v. Gait (179 Mo. 8), in 1903, involved a city ordinance of 
St. Louis which declared all weeds more than a foot high on private property to 
be nuisances, required all owners of city lots to cut down such weeds on their 
property, and provided a penalty for the violation of the ordinance. The court 
held that the city charter empowering it to abate nuisances on private property 
