Page:Bee-keeping not a nuisance ... History of the lawsuit entitled Z. A. Clark vs. the city of Arkadelphia, Arkansas, and defended by the "National bee-keepers' union." (IA beekeepingnotnu00nati).pdf/1



In May, 1887. the Arkadelphia City Council, Ark., passed an Ordinance, which, with its preamble, ran thus:

The ordinance as adopted read thus:

The cause for this action was the fact that Z. A. Clark, who has kept bees in that city, was not in political harmony with those in power, and the latter sought to punish him and get rid of his presence, by prohibiting the keepngkeeping [sic] of bees within the corporate limits of the city.

Z. A. Clark was ordered to remove his bees by June 6, 1887. He did not remove them; and on January 2, 1888, he was arrested; and fined, day after day, for ten successive days, for maintaining a nuisance, by keeping his bees in the suburbs of that city. Not paying the fines, Z. A. Clark was committed to the city jail, by order of the Mayor. Being a member of the “National Bee-Keepers’ Union,” he very naturally appealed to it for protection and being clearly in the right, the “Union” engaged Major J. L. Witherspoon, ex-Attorney-General of Arkansas, and several others, to defend this suit.

The National Bee-Keepers’ Union carried the case to the Circuit Court, for it would be detrimental to the pursuit to allow an ordinance against bee-keeping to remain uncontested, to be quoted as a precedent against the keeping of bees, because it had been declared “a nuisance” by a City Council in Arkansas.

By the enforcement of that unlawful ordinance of the city, Z. A. Clark was deprived of his liberty and the constitutional rights guaranteed to every citizen in the United States.

Even granting that it was wrong in Z. A. Clark not to obey the city authorities, he should have had a speedy trial by an impartial jury—all of which had been denied him. Even when released under a writ of habeas corpus, he was, within three hours, re-arrested and fined.

After demanding a change of venue, because of the prejudice of the Mayor, that functionary again fined him, denying him his constitutional rights.