Bee-Keeping Not a fkusanee. 
[§0 by tlie Supreme Court.] 
5F £"37 
A 
History of the Lawsuit entitled Z. A. Clark vs. the City of Arkadelpliia, 
Arkansas, and defended by the ‘‘National Bee-Keepers’ Union.” 
I11 May, 1887. the Arkadelphia City Council, Ark., passed an 
Ordinance, which, with its preamble, ran thus : 
Whereas, a petition from many citizens of Arkadelphia, having been previously pro 
sented to this Council, setting forth that the raising of bees or keeping them in the City 
of Arkadelphia, was injurious and destructive to property, such as early fruit, and 
dangerous to citizens when riding in vehicles or on horseback upon the streets, and a 
pest in many of the houses in said city, having stung many persons, and especially 
children, while walking the streets and sidewalks. 
The ordinance as adopted read thus : 
“Be it ordained by the Council of the City of Arkadelphia, That it shall be unlawful 
for any person or persons to own, keep or raise bees in the City of Arkadelphia, the 
same having been declared a nuisance. 
“ That any person or persons keeping or owning bees in the City of Arkadelphia are 
hereby notified to remove the same from the corporate limits of the City of Arkadelphia 
within thirty days from date hereof.” 
Section' 2 provides a penalty of not less than $5.00 or more than $25.00 for a viola¬ 
tion of the ordinance. 
The cause for this action was the fact that Z. A. Clark, who has 
kept bees in that city, was not in political harmony with those in 
power, and the latter sought to punish him and get rid of his 
presence, by prohibiting the keepng of bees within the corporate 
limits of the city. 
Z. A. Clark was ordered to remove his bees by June 6, 1887. 
He did not remove them ; and on January 2, 1888, he was arrested ; 
and lined, day after day, for ten successive days, for maintaining a 
nuisance, by keeping his bees in the suburbs of that city. Not 
paying the fines, Z. A. Clark was committed to the city jail, by 
order of the Mayor. Being a member of the “National Bee- 
Keepers’ Union,” he very naturally appealed to it for protection 
and being clearly in the right, the “Union” engaged Major J. L. 
Witherspoon, ex-Attorney-General of Arkansas, and several others, 
to defend this suit. 
The National Bee-Keepers’ Union carried the case to the Circuit 
Court, for it would be detrimental to the pursuit to allow an ordi¬ 
nance against bee-keeping to remain uncontested, to be quoted as 
a precedent against the keeping of bees, because it had been 
declared “a nuisance ” by a City Council in Arkansas. 
By the enforcement of that unlawful ordinance of the city, Z. A. 
Clark was deprived of his liberty and the constitutional rights 
guaranteed to every citizen in the United States. 
Even granting that it was wrong in Z. A. Clark not to obey the 
city authorities, he should have had a speedy trial by an impartial 
jury — all of which had been denied him. Even when released 
under a writ of habeas corpus, he was. within three hours, re-ar¬ 
rested and lined. 
After demanding a change of venue, because of the prejudice of 
the Mayor, that functionary again fined him, denying him his con¬ 
stitutional rights. 
