48 PLANT QUARANTINE AND CONTROL ADMINISTRATION [April-June 
conferred ample power to pass the ordinance in question and to enforce it in the 
.exercise of its police power. 
In all these cases, involving the right of the State under its police power to 
destroy private property as a means of preventing the spread of diseases affect- 
ing orchards, crops, and vegetation, it is, in some cases, explicitly stated, and, in 
the others, it is implied, that the owner is entitled to no compensation because 
of the destruction of his property. This results from the fact, as stated, 
that such State action is based on its police power and not on its right of emi- 
nent domain. The distinction is that, when, under the sovereign right of emi- 
nent domain, private property is taken for public use, the owner is entitled to 
compensation, whereas, under the police power, even though the property may be 
taken from the owner, as in the case of certain nuisances, it is not " taken for 
public use " but is taken away so that it may be destroyed, in order to promote 
the general welfare, while the owner shares in the general benefit resulting from 
the exercise of the State power. The principle on which action of this kind by 
the State is based, was stated nearly a half a century ago by the United States 
Supreme Court in Mugler v. Kansas (123 U. S. 623), where, at page 669, the 
court said : 
The power which the States have of prohibiting such use by individuals of their prop- 
erty as will be prejudicial to the health, the morals, or the safety of the public, is not — 
and, consistently with the existence and safety of organized society, can not be — burdened 
with the condition that the State must compensate such individual owners for pecuniary 
losses they may sustain, by reason of their not being permitted, by a noxious use of their 
property, to inflict injury upon the community. The exercise of the police power by the 
destruction of property which is itself a public nuisance, or the prohibition of its use in a 
particular way, whereby its value becomes depreciated, is very different from taking prop- 
erty for public use, or from depriving a person of his property without due process of law. 
In the one case, a nuisance only is abated ; in the other, unoffending property is taken away 
from an innocent owner. 
PINK BOLLWORM OF COTTON FOUND IN SOUTH FLORIDA 
(Press notice) 
June 14, 1932. 
The pink bollworm of cotton was discovered a few days ago in southern Flor- 
ida, the Plant Quarantine and Control Administration of the United States De- 
partment of Agriculture announced to-day. 
This insect, which does not occur in any part of the main Cotton Belt 
of the United States, was found in a small patch of not more than 2 acres 
of cultivated cotton near Miami and in wild cotton in a section of Florida 
extending from south of Miami to Key West. This region is some 400 miles 
distant from commercial cotton plantings. Infestation has been found in a 
native species of wild cotton growing on the coral-rock formations of southern 
Florida and the keys. 
The pink bollworm occurs in the West Indies and in Mexico as well as in 
the other principal cotton-growing regions of the world but has heretofore 
been found in the United States only in the Southwest. The only infestation 
in the main Cotton Belt consisted of an extensive outbreak from 1916 to 1921 
in southeastern Texas and southwestern Louisiana. This outbreak was 
eradicated about 10 years ago, and no specimens have since been found in 
that region. The infestation in Mexico, however, extends northward into 
western Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, where cotton is grown in certain 
irrigated sections. An eradication program in Arizona is in progress at the 
present time. 
The Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with the State Plant Board 
of Florida, has taken immediate steps to eradicate the newly found Florida 
infestation and to prevent spread during the eradication work. Fortunately, 
under the peculiar conditions existing in and around this section, the danger 
of spread to commercial cotton-growing areas is considered relatively small, and 
Jt is hoped that the precautionary measures now being taken will largely 
eliminate any spread. Both the department and the plant quarantine officials 
of the States concerned believe that quarantine action at this time is not 
.necessary and hope that the pest can be exterminated without the necessity of 
issuing such regulations. 
The State quarantine officials of five leading cotton-growing States met with 
members of the Plant Quarantine and Control Administration and the Bureau 
