BEE-KEEPING NOT A NUISANCE. 
3 
The argument of Judge S. W. Williams, one of the attorneys for 
the “National Bee-Keepers’ Union,” is here given in full, because 
of its very great importance and value for reference. 
ARGUMENT OF JUDGE WILLIAMS. 
This case discloses a most flagrant 
violation of the property rights of the 
citi/.en. It seems that Clark, who 
lived in the outskirts of Arkadelphia, 
a village of some two thousand inhabi¬ 
tants, scattered over territory enough 
for one hundred thousand —a ruse in 
urbe —had a few bees, as the record 
shows (page 1), 35 stands. This gave 
rise to a persecution unparalleled since 
the days of the boot and the thumb 
screw, to force Clark to give up his 
property. 
Those running the city at the time, 
not content to make a test case, and 
have the question settled by this Court 
—after passing this sweeping ordi¬ 
nance, commenced a system of daily 
arrests, trials without jury, judgments 
and imprisonments, resulting in ap¬ 
peals; and this is one of a numerous 
spawn of cases from the same oppres¬ 
sive hot-bed. 
At last Clark was compelled, at a 
great loss, to give up his property, 
and quit his business of bee-raising 
and honey-production in Arkadelphia 
— a principal source of his support— 
as an alternative to indefinite 
imprisonment. 
When the case came to t he Circuit 
Court, one test case was tried, upon 
motion to dismiss, and the Court 
below held the ordinance void, because 
it did more than regulate the keeping 
of property—it forbade the owning, 
or keeping a valuable and useful prop¬ 
erty in the town; in effect holding 
that the bee was per sc, a nuisance. 
For if it was not, then its presence in 
a town could not be prohibited by any 
law. 
Before proceeding to argue the case 
we call attention to the statement of 
Counsel, at page 9 of their Brief, that 
it is a matter of common knowledge 
that they are liable to sting children, 
etc. It is not a matter of common 
knowledge, because it is not true : un¬ 
less children molest them at their 
hives, or catch them. But because a 
domestic insect may sting or hurt 
under some circumstances, no more 
makes it a nuisance—per se— and lia¬ 
ble to prohibition, than the fact that 
a horse may kick, may run away in 
harness and kill a child; or an ox 
may gore persons with its horns, 
would make these animals nuisances 
per se. 
I venture the assertion that there 
is not a town or city in the United 
States where bees are not kept. I 
know they are now kept in Little 
Rock, and have ever been. My near¬ 
est neighbors have them. I have 
kept them in my yard while Tearing a 
family of children, and I cannot recall 
any instance of an injury from bees. 
I speak this in the line of common 
knowledge, which the Court must 
recognize. 
I can recall the kick of a pony, and 
a cow running over a child — shall 
keeping of horses and cows be forbid¬ 
den by ordinance? And while bees 
have been kept for centuries in towns, 
it is an argument in their favor that 
Arkadelphia is the first on record to 
forbid them. I respectfully submit 
that while the Court must judicially 
know the habits of all animals, the 
“ little busv bee ” should have a chance 
with the cow, the horse, the sportive 
dog, the gentle, purring cat, and even 
the festivechicken cock — on a par with 
counsel’s skunk-farm story—a pure 
fiction of Bill Nye. 
I may be allowed to refer to the fact 
that last year two instances are given 
in newspapers, one authentic at TIot 
Springs, one elsewhere, not so well 
established — where children were 
killed by a chicken cock attacking 
them. For this reason can the keeping 
of chickens be forbidden? The bee 
has no such record of homicidal or 
infanticidal results. Will these 
instances, or the fighting of mother- 
hens over their broods, make chickens 
perse nuisances? Unless bees, under 
all circumstances, however kept and 
tended, and in any quantities how¬ 
ever small are per se nuisances—this 
ordinance cannot be sustained ; for it 
does not regulate the quantity, or 
manner of keeping, or make the 
keeper responsible, as in case of other 
dangerous animals, and punishable 
for consequences, but assumes to 
destroy property in them in Arkadel¬ 
phia altogether, or compel a man to 
leave his home and buy another, or 
quit his business. 
The provisions of Sections 751 to 
7(14, Mansfield, does not give the city 
of Arkadelphia power to take a man’s 
property for public use, without com¬ 
pensation, under the power to prevent 
injury or annoyance, Section 751 
