560 
LAWS RELATING TO BEES 
beekeeper was proven. From these cases 
it can be seen that the law governing the 
location of bees is very simple. For a bee¬ 
keeper not be liable for any injury that 
his bees may inflict on some other person 
who is acting within his rights the bees 
should be located in such a way that the 
beekeeper knows or should ordinary know 
that they will not be troublesome, for if he 
has knowledge that in the course of ordi¬ 
nary events the bees in the position where 
they are located are liable to molest others, 
he can be held to answer for whatever dam¬ 
ages they may commit, and that means not 
only actual but punitive damages should 
the facts warrant. 
BEES NOT A NUISANCE. 
The liability of a beekeeper for any in¬ 
jury done by the bees to another person or 
the property of another rests on the doc¬ 
trine of negligence, and not on the doctrine 
or theory that bees are a nuisance per se; 
that is, in themselves a nuisance. In the 
case of Petey Manufacturing Co. vs. Dry- 
den (Del.) 5 Pen. 166; 62 Atl. 1056, the 
court used the following language: “The 
keeping of bees is recognized as proper 
and beneficial, and it seems to us that the 
liability of the owner as keeper thereof for 
any injury done by them to the person or 
property of another rests on the doctrine 
of negligence.” Also see Cooley on Torts, 
349. 
CITY ORDINANCES DECLARING BEES A 
NUISANCE. 
The right to follow any of the ordinary 
callings of life, to pursue any lawful busi¬ 
ness vocation, is one of the privileges of 
citizens of this country; but it must be 
done in such a manner as is not incon¬ 
sistent with the equal rights of others. 
Butchers Union vs. Crescent City, etc. Ill 
U. S. 746; 28 L. Ed. 591. 
A city has a right under what is termed 
in law “Police Power” to pass ordinances 
for the public welfare, even tho the thing 
prohibited limits and restricts some person 
in the exercise of a constitutional right, if 
the act is for the public health and welfare. 
For example, laws prohibiting the main¬ 
taining of slaughter-houses in certain dis¬ 
tricts and the prohibiting of livery stables 
on certain streets have been held to be valid 
police legislation. But the act specified in 
the ordinance must, in the particular in¬ 
stance mentioned therein, be a nuisance. 
The mere fact that the city has passed an 
ordinance does not of itself make it so un¬ 
less the bees are in fact a nuisance. 
ARKADELPHIA VS. CLARK. 
Arkadelphia vs. Clark, 52 Ark. 23; 11 
S. W. 957, is a case in point. This particu¬ 
lar case was decided in 1889, and a report 
and history of it was published by Thomas 
G. Newman, then General Manager of the 
National Beekeepers’ Union, for free dis¬ 
tribution to the members. From the his¬ 
tory of the case as given by Newman it 
seems that Z. A. Clark, the defendant in 
the case, was not in political harmony with 
those in power. He was a beekeeper, and 
it was sought to punish him and get rid of 
his presence by prohibiting the keeping of 
bees within the corporate limits of the city 
of Arkadelphia. So in May, 1887, the 
Arkadelphia city council adopted an ordi¬ 
nance which read: 
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 Arkadelphia within 
thirty days from the date thereof. 
The ordinance also provided a penalty 
of not less than $5.00 nor more than 
$25.00 for violation of the ordinance. 
In June, 1887, Clark was given notice to 
remove his bees. This he did not do, and 
he was arrested on January 2, 1888, and 
fined day after day for ten successive days. 
He did not pay his fines, so was committed 
to jail by the order of the mayor of Arka¬ 
delphia. Being a member of the National 
Beekeepers’ Union, he appealed to it for 
protection; and as it was considered that 
Clark was in the right the National Bee¬ 
keepers’ Union engaged attorneys to de¬ 
fend the suit. 
The decision as handed down by the 
Supreme Court was that “Neither the 
keeping, owning, or raising of bees is, in 
itself, a nuisance. Bees may become a 
nuisance in a city, but whether they are so 
or not is a question to be judicially deter- 
