6 
BEE-KEEPING NOT A NUISANCE. 
.slaughter house. Treford vs. People. 
14 Michigan, 41. Cannot compel 
removal of a steam engine from a city 
not per se a nuisance. Baltimore vs. 
Palecke. 49 Md. 217. 33 American, 
239. Nor can a city require the 
owner of a theater to pay a police 
officer for attendance at every per¬ 
formance. Waters vs. Leech, 3 Ark. 
110. In the last cited case J udge 
Dickinson, delivering the opinion of 
ihis Court, says: “The corporate 
powers'are not only limited, but must 
be reasonably exercised in sound 
discretion, and not only strictly 
within the limits of the Charter, but 
in perfect subordination to the 
Constitution, and the general laws of 
land, and the rights dependent 
thereon.” 
In short, I refer the Court to Horr 
and Bemiss on municipal police ordi¬ 
nance, Sec. 131, for a full review of 
this point. 
Where the instances are given 
wherein unreasonable ordinances and 
those in violation of private rights are 
given, the ordinances must accord 
with the Federal Constitution and 
laws, and with the Legislation of the 
State. 
It is misleading to follow English 
decisions, because in that country 
municipal power rests often upon 
proscription, a source not recognized 
here.. Horr & Bemis, Sec. 123. 
We do not dispute that if there was 
express power given to enact an ordi¬ 
nance of a certain kind, if constitu¬ 
tional, the discretion or propriety of 
enacting it, is left to the judgment of 
the Council, and its decision is final. 
Horr & Bemiss, Sec. 128. But here is 
no “express power ” given by law to 
forbid bees: but merely a general 
power to prevent “annoyance.” 
“ injury,” etc. Whether an ordinance 
is within the terms of the power, and 
is reasonable, the courts must deter¬ 
mine, and have determined in this 
State, and elsewhere, again and again. 
So much for the contention of 
counsel—that the action of the City 
Council was final; invoking a correct 
principle applied to a wrong state of 
facts. I say to them, show your 
express power to prohibit keeping 
bees, or any other animal, or insect, 
for fear somebody may get hurt, and 
I will surrender the case, and even 
waive the constitutional question. 
There is no such express power given ; 
that is the full extent to which the 
decisions go. If a power is expressly 
given by the Legislature, within the 
Constitution, the decision of the 
Council, that the power should be 
exercised by ordinance, is" final. Yet 
ibis is invoked to bolster up this 
sweeping anti-bee ordinance; about as 
much akin to the question as a 
Choctaw Treaty to a Psalm of David. 
You cannot stable bees like a horse, 
but the Court must judicially know to 
do that, would destroy their value as 
property, and the Court will judicially 
know that unless the owners of houses, 
groceries, etc., are careless in leaving 
attractions for them, they will not 
annoy them; and if they do so attract 
them by carelessness, they cannot 
complain. The bee, even with these 
attractions, prefers to pasture among 
forests, fields, and amidst flowers; so 
much so,that its habits are crystallized 
in song, and made subject of poetic 
simile. 
If the people of Arkadelphia will 
keep the sugar and molasses barrels 
closed, and the grocers will keep their 
premises clean, no bee of Clark’s will 
visit them ; and from the well-known 
habits of the housewives of Arkadel¬ 
phia — in perfect order and cleanliness, 
having no superiors—no bee visits a 
private house there; and hurting 
young fruit and the like, as suggested 
in the ordinance, raises a suspicion 
that here is a pretext, and behind 
the ordinance is a concealed motive. 
Was it that Clark was making too 
much out of honey and bees? or was 
he competing too sharply with 
somebody ? 
The power given cities must harmo¬ 
nize with constitutional property 
rights, and must be reasonable and 
lawful, and not contravene common 
right. Dillon on Mun. Corp. Sec. 258, 
259. And “wherever an ordinance 
seeks to alter a well-settled and 
fundamental principle of the common 
law,” or to establish a rule interfering 
with the rights of individuals, or the 
public, the power to do so must come 
from plain Legislative enactment.” 
Taylor vs. Griswold, 2 Green, N. .1., 
222. Dillon on Municipal Corp. Sec. 
55 and Note. 
I have already shoiwn that by no 
possibility can the power be derived 
from the powers contained in 
Mansfield’s Digest, Sec. 751 ; which 
is nothing but a power to punish or 
abate a public nuisance, and while the 
named and defined powers are very 
full, we look in vain for any power or 
authority to abate or remove bees, as 
such ; nor would it be constitutional if 
there was such a statute. It is only 
when bees by the place or manner of 
keeping, or the like, become a public 
nuisance, and to that extent, and no 
further, does the general power go. 
