The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-02-19
"p.Ra,pIE Doos.-
Tbe LegnI Aspect OF the Prop"sc"
Lec.isIntion on the Aspect.


Legislation ON TN" Aspect
To the Editor OF The Post.
Referring 10 recent publication in your
paper containing the text of the bill pro-
vidng for the destruction o. prairie dogs
/ should like to be permitted TO make
the following suggestions
II has occurred 10 me that the lcglsla-
ture is without power TO declare prairie
dogs as such a nuisance simply borause
they remain upon the lands of another,
and thereby give authority to punish the
owners of lands when dogs go upon the
same against the owners viii. when no
is powerless to restrain them.
IN volume IL, American and English En-
cyclopedia OF Law, on page 922, it IS said;
is applied TO that class OF wrongs that
arises from the unreasonable, unwarrant-
able or unlawful use by person OF his
own property, real or personal, or Of his
| own improper, indecent or pnia"lul per
scnal conduct working an obsUucton OIL
or injury To, q right OF another, or 10 tne
public, and producing such material au-
toyancc, Inconvenience, discomfort TO- Of
! hurt. that the Law viii presume eon3e-
quent damage" ,.
Agajn, in the same book, on page 927,
/ speaking OF a public nuisance, II Is sara:
| IA nuisance, TO be a public nuisance must
be in a public place, or where tho pdpilc
i frequently congrcgate, or where mem eFs
/ If Inc public are likely 10 come within
the range OF influence; for II tho act OF
use of property be in remote and unfre-
nuented locality. IT will not, unless ...'''
in Sc, be a public nuisance
AS 10 what constitutes nuisance per
sc. the same book contains, on pSSe 91,,
for further discussion; lhe!e ar
cases saws Mr. Cooley in his constitutional
limitation. "where II becomes necessars
for The publIc authorities TO interfere Win
Ia control by individuals of their property
and even to destroy IT," And NJ Cp2ley
further says. "his interest must yea y
that necessity which knows no law. ~ :
matter of course, the indiylduel flsht u ,
yield. In such cases II ~ nrn9eri,
some cases ITO destroy private pope' =
10 prevent the spread OF hre, ravages o
nastilence the advance of ho3tlie army
ar any other great public calamity
As to whether the existence OF pTairi.
dogs creates public nuisance autngilAliis I
in effect, the condemnation ana teAins ~, =
i nriyate property 10 root them Guy, "ouI
! paa,,iro mole than mere legislative ae3
: iaratIon that the prairie dogs are pup'i
section of the act requires IN
owner To exterminate the DOSE. We
! ten what must he do to accomplish tn
I purpose? lie would certainly pe lelun ~.
9 by legislative enactment, 10 60 70 % Sor
: killing prairie dogs and to WORK NY ~ az :,
Of maj Undoubtedly. II Is cominshuap'
s ~ , .nss n work. vet th- legislature ha
! never been vested With the power to man man
men labor II can NOT make NV !
anu 'a 70 exterrninate, by labor: which wi
be- required he prairie dogs In qs I, stanl
d II the Legislature had this power, II NON gou
also have the power 70 liant pools
a aa,er. 70 reclaim the swampy and owe,
4 Sowed low lands; TO kill rattle snas ,,,.s'
aos,roy boll weevils: TO shoot cnish'
S oestEos ayIpe over and upon thoIr land y
4 drive away English sparrows. snd g he ~
: multitude Of things which wou'u "