Evening journal., 1896-03-14
THE LIEBIC WORSTED.
Victory for the People In the
Court of Chancery.
HARMAE AND KNOWLES WINNERS

Preliminary Injunction Eojoining the
City Board OF Health From Abating
the Nuisance at the Works OF the Lie-
big Chemical Company.
Chancellor Nicholson this morning
rendered q decision in the Injunction
case Of the Liebig Manufacturing Com
pany VS. the Board OF Health Of this
city He took his seat on the bench in
the general court room at 10 10 and
Immediately after the adjournment Of
the Superior Court, which was In session
but a few minutes.
Lewis Vsndegrift was present as
the legal representative OF the Liebig
Chemical Company, while City Solicitor
Robert G. Harman and Horace q
Knowles appeared for the Board of
Health. DR.. Frantz aud Secretary Col
quhoun were also present.
Chief Justice Lore and Associate
Judges Grubb. MARVEL and Cullen re
mained to hear the decision Among the
other auditors were John II. Rodney,
Alexender B. Cooper, William n.
Byrne, Wslter H. Hayes, Victor B.
Woolley. Benjamin Nlelds, Samuel n.
McCsulley, j. Harvey Whiteman, Charles
B. Evans, John P. Nislds and ex Sheriff
William Simmons, Of the Street and
Sewer Department.
Victory for the City.
II WAS soon apparent that the Board Of
Health through the city solicitor and his
associate had won a victory over the
company which has been for several
FOCnfhu fnrofutfouoIrv
noxious odors to the people Of Whining
ton.
The decision covered forty.two pages of
mannprint, and lawyers who heard IL,
say that IL is one OF the ablest ever
handed down from the Delaware bench.
1t starts out by reviewing at length
the fight between the company and the
Board of Health; gives the notice OF the
latter in full, together with the subse-
qusnt action taken In the efforts of the
board to sbste the nuisance. Then
follows the text Of the bill fled by the
company, upon which the restraining
order was issued. The answer OF the
defendants Is referred to. together with
the statute creating the Board OF Health
and excerpts from the charter and
ordinances Of the city 1t then goes on
TO say:
"It is admitted that the defendants-
the Board of Health Of the city Of VIII
ngton-hsve been regularly appointed
and organized In accordance with the
provisions Of the above recited section
1856 Of the charter, al In the action taken
by them in relation to the factory OF the
complainant, they have manifestly In
tended to proceed In accordance with the
provisions Of section 1877 above cited.
The authority Of the Legislature to
confer powers Of this character for the
protection Of the public health and the
suppression Of nuisanoes upon municipal
bodies or officers Is we'll settled, and has
loHg been exercised In every state Of the
U lion.
Such powers must be summarily ex
ercIsed in order to accomplish their OBJ
ject To allow an alleged nuisance to
remain until IL had been decided By a
court after deliberate trial, to be a nui-
sanee, would defeat the purpose Of such
statutes
In such case private rights must be
held subordinate TO the public welfare
under the strictest Interpretation Of the
maxim. 'salus pop1li suprema lex
1t is settled principle Of the common
law growing out Of the nature Of we'll
ordered civil society, that every holder Of
property, however absolute and unqueli
fed may be bic title, holds 1t under the
implied liability that his use OF it must
be 30 regulated that It shall not be in
furious to the equal enjoyment OF others
having an eqnal right to the enjoyment
Of their property, nor Injurious to the
rights of the community.
Rights OF property, like all other
social and conventional rights, are
subject to such reasonable limitations in
their enjoyment as shall prevent them
from being injurious. The prohibition
OF noxous uses of property is very diff
ferent from the exercise Of the right Of
eminent domain-the right Of the state
to take and appropriate private property
to public use-whenever the public
exigency requires It; which can bs done
only on conditions of providing q reason
able compensation therefore
when such noxious use OF property
Is injurious to the rights OF the com.
munity, causing a public annoyance Of q
sensible, tangible sort, IL Is called a
public or common nuisance, and is a
criminal offense. The person or persons
responsible for its existence are liable to
indictment and the nuisance itself might
at common law be summarily abated by
private individuals, under certain con-
ditions and limitations, even II the
abatement should involve the destruction
of valuable private property. Or again.
bill in equity might be fled In the nan .
of the attorney general TO injoin the
noxions use complained Of.
Although all this Is 'Horn-brok law
and generally admitted as coon as
statsd-so that It would be superb uous
to cite suthorllies-yet a confusion Of
ideas In regard to it-s practical ignor
ing of its meaning and its consequences
appears in so many adjudicRted cases
that q re statement In the precise Ian.
guage OF some of our greatest jurists Of
these fundamental common law princi-
Plies seems q desirable II not necessary
introduction to the consideration OF the
grounds upon which a court Of equity
will interfere By Injunction to restrain
the exercise OF the police power, which
Is the fundamental question to be de
termined In this case.
''InnumerRble cases have arisen In our
state and Federal Courts where the
courts have bsen obliged to pass upon
- II.