The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1903-10-10
AIaSHlp DIFFICULTIES.

The physical problems to be solved by
the airship builder are so many and so
difficult that il may seem somewhat IN
charitable further TO discourage him by
adding legal one 10 the list. declares
the New York Herald Nevertheless.
there is a very serious legal difficulty TO
be overcome by the airslip builder before
his machine can be OF any practical use
to him. and one, moreover. which will not
present itself until the elements have beer
overcome and aerial navigation is an ac-
complished fact.
There is an ancient maxim of law which
reads as follows: ''Cujus est solum, ejus
est usque ad cOelum, which has been
translated thus: He who owns the lanl
owns it up. to the skies This venerable
rule Of property IS as good today as il ever
was. and is full Of menacing significance
10 the airship builder. for the effect of
this rule OF law is that the owner of land
has the exclusive right 10 the air over
and above the four sorners OF his prop
erty. and any interferce Herewith,
however slight and practically harmless.
constitutes a trespass. for which the
owner can always recover at least noni-
nal damages.
This right is not a mere technical one
1t has been frequently asserted in our
courts and has always been accorded
strict recognition. The consequence of all
Of which is that the airship builder win
be unable TO pass over his neighbor's land
without rendering himself liable TO a suit
for damages. While the verdict in such
a case would hardly be for more than
six cents yet that verdict would be suf-
ficient 10 carry the costs with IL.
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 il than the
mere action for nominal damages the
stringent remedy OF injunction is open
to aim.
The theory upon which the land owner
would ask the court for an injunction re-
straining the airship owner from cross
ing over his land would be that such n
preventive remedy would save the neces-
sity of repeated suits. Each time the
airship crossed over the line of the adj
Joining soil trespass would be commit
ted, and each trespass would give rise
to a separate and distinct cause of ac-
ton against the airship owner. Obviously
if the land owner had TO start a new
suit every time a trespass was COM
mtted he would suffer great hardship.
and. for that reason. any court would
grant an injunction as a matter of course
almost.
All this is not technical theory Time
and time again nave the courts in this
country and in England enjoined persons
from committing repeated trespasses
when the commission of them has been
threatened and would otherwise necessi-
tate the bringing of great number of
separate suits.
The significance Of this is apparent. If
any great body Of land owners object
to the use OF airships-and the hostility
of the railroads and other transporting
companies may be reckoned upOn-they
can so effectively confine the airships
field of operation as TO render the ma
chine of no practical use TO it's owner.
The only reason why this has not been
the case with balloons is that the hostil
ity of transportation companies has never
been aroused, because, owing to the ina
bility of the balloon rider to direct it's
course. they have never been used for
transportation purposes.
With the airship, however. the case will
be very different. The flying machine as
it is promised us win be used for freight
transportation as well as pleasure. and
the great land owning companies. whose
business is the carrying of freight, can
hardly be expected to lie supinely on
their backs and watch the heavily laden
flying machines crossing over their lands
with impunity in defiance OF all rules Of
law and justice
The airship owner will find himself
confronted with two alternatives-he viii
either have to confine his flying trips TO
those regions Of the aerial world under
which the land is owned by the public or
by those who do not objsct to his airy
trips. or else he can disregard the in
functions and subject himself to fine and
Imprisonment for contempt OF court. The
latter alternative will he pretty expen-
sive the former very incOnvenient.
This being the state Of the law, the
airship builders only hope must lie in the
legislature. but whether that body will
care to take such a radical step as would
be necessary TO give the desired relief is
entirely matter OF conjecture.