The star. (Reynoldsville, Pa.) 1892-1946, 1907-09-04
BUSY BEES MAY BE
PRIVATE, BUT NOT
A PUBLIC NUISANCE,
A Few Remarks on the Futil-
ity Of Passing Ordinances
AGAINST Them.

Bee.keeping is an industry that can
not be termed a common nuisance
tberefore cannot be prohibited by Or
dinance. While bees may become
|. nrivate nuisance, it is claimed by N H.
France, in hi. legal rights, that an Or
dinance cannot be levied as mere prl-
yate nuisance to one or more persons
The nuisance must be public ana
oeneral in character and mu be an
actual nuisance with sufficient evidence
20 sustain it. An ordinance by city
council, which makes the owning Keep
mo or raising OF bees within city's
limit a nuisance in itself, is TOO BROAD
and is therefore invalid
nAu ordinances arbitrary in their
farms and unreasonable and unneces-
sarily abridging private rights are
vosa ,,--Dillon. For an illustration, "A
1 bee keeper is located in the outskirts Oh
u town or city, with only one family
near enough to be annoyed by the bees
Tn this case they could not be consid-
|n,red common nuisance, as the puolic
Drobably never sees them. Therefore,
cop,d not be dealt with by ordinance.
"They might become nuisance tothe
family nearby but this would be pri-
vate nuisance, and would have to be
iudicially determined whether they
were or not. ."-Supreme Court, CLARK
VS.. City of Arkadelphia, Ark.
could cite to you many cases wnere
ordinances have been passed but never
enforced. And some where action had
been taken. and then dropped by the
c;tv. And cases where action has been
brought by the city and case won by the
bee-keeper, viz: Central Lake, Micn''
the Judge decided the city had not the
power to pass such ordinance
Reedsburg, Wis. The judge DECIDED
.ha haas were not a nuisance and the
injunction was dissolved.
Riverside, Cal. Case tried on con-
stitutional rights, and was lost by the
city. :,
Greenville, Ill. City Mayor ruled
that the city had not the power or
authority to pass such unlawful ordin-
ance. :,
Nephi, Utah. City Mayor decided
chev have no such right to drive an
Industry from existing in the city
Another case broughtby candy manu-
facturer was disposed OF by the manu-
kacturer being instructed by the court
to not only screen his factory, but the
wareroom where he kept his empty
sugar barrels also.
more recent case, and nearer home,
was a candy manufacturer in Phila-
delphia who made serious complaint to
the authorities, of some bees that were
kept near. The owner received notice
10 remove them at once, but a voice
came from 100000 factory, I'VE
will test it in the courts" and from the
last report the bees we're still doing
business on the old stand. While it is
konceded by myself that bees are some-
lines a public nuisance, it Is oftener
the fault OF the person keeping them
\han the bees. A person keeping bees
q. city should in the first place secure
b gentle strain OF bees, should never
expose combs or honey through the
heat Of the day, or do anything that
viii attract other bees and cause rob-
Ing among the bees, for there is moth
NO that will make bees crosser. They
hould not. be disturbed only when
necessary, and then should always be
ubdued by little smoke II they are
Inv ways cross. They should not be too
ktrong In number, nor have too much
honey In store, as their honey is some-
times their ambition. You can annoy
br tease bees and make them cross
anne as animals. Bees should always
have pure honey to winter on, and then
hey can.endure three or four months
confinement without any Inconvenience
providing, they are not disturbed in
Inv way. But when forced to winter
bn sugar syrup IL is apt to cause the
potting Of clothes in the spring.
NECToR AND VENOM.