The Birmingham age-herald., 1903-10-18
Possibilities of
 the AirShip.

The physical problems to be solved by the airship builder are so many and So difficult that fl may seem somewhat un- charitable further to discourage him by adding n legal one to the list. Neyerthe- less, there is a very serious legal difficulty tp be overcome ny he oirshIp builder be- fore his machine can be Of any practical use to him. and one, moreover which will not present itself until the elements have been overcome and aerial nayigatio Is aH accomplished fact.
 There is an ancient maxim pf jaw which reads as follows .-"Cnjus est scum, ejus est usque ad coelum, which hns been translated thus He who owns the land owns Ii up 10 the slles.' lhia venerable rule of property Is as good to-day as II ever was, and is full of meneclng signia. canoe to fhe airship builder for tue CT. feet of this rule of laN is that tnc owner of land has the exclusive rlght to the air over and above the four corners of his property, and any Interference herewith, however slight and practically harmless. constitutes a trespass, for which the owner can always eeeoger at least nomi- nal damages.
 This right is not a mere technical one. It has been frequently asserted n our courts and has always been accorded q strict recpgnitlon The consequence oi all of which Is that the airship builder will be unable to pass over his neighbors
 
 suit for damages. While the verdict in such a case would hardly be for nore than six cents, yet that verdict would be sufh- cient to carry the costs with it.
 If this were the only effect of the exist ing rule of law however, the airship builder might perhaps be willing to take the consequences. But that is not the case As an incident to the land owners right to the air above his land and as better means of protecting fl than the mere action for nominal damages the stringent remedy of injunction is open to him.
 The theory upon which the land owner would ask the court for an injunction re- straining the airship owner from crossing over his land would be that such preventive remedy would save the necessity of repeated suits Each time the airship crossed over the line of the adjoining soil trespass would be committed. and each trespass would give rise to q separate and distinct cause of ae- ton against the airshlp owner. Obviously, if the lapd owner had to start new suit every time q trespass was committed he would suffer great hardship, and for that reason any court would graut an inJnneupn as matter of course almost | All this Is not mere technical theory. | Time and time again have the courts in this | country and In England enioined persons from committing repeated trespasses when | the commission of them has been threatened | and would otherwise necessitate the bring. 1 Ing of q great number of separate suits. The significance of this is apparent. II any great body of land owners object to the use of airships-and the hostility of the rail- l roads and other transporting companies may l be reckoned upon they can so effectively coiifine the airshlp's field of operation as to | render the machine of no practical use to It's l owner.
 | The only reason why this has not been the 1 case with balloons Is that the hostility of | transportation companies has never been aroused. because owing to the Inability of fhe balloon rider 10 direct It's course, they have never been used for transportation purposes.
 With the alrship, however, the case will be very different. The flying machine as II is promised us will be used for freight transpor- fation as well as pleasure, md the great land owning companies, whose business Is the carrying of freight, can hardly be expected to 'lle supinely on their backs" and watch the heavily laden flying machines crossing over their lands with lmpunity in defiance of all rules of law and justice.
 The alrship owner Will find himself con- fronted with two alternatives he win either have to eonfine his flying trips 10 those regions of the aerial world under which the land Is owned by the public or by those who do not object to his airy trips, or else cnn disregard the injunctlons and subject himself to fine and Imprisonment for contempt of court The latter alternative will be pretty expensive the former very lnconvenient.
 This being the state of the law, the airship builders only hope must lie in the legisla- ture, but whether that body will care 10 take such a radical step as would be necessary to give the desired relief Is entirely matter Of oou