« PreviousContinue »
ing the north half of its other tract on the , A. No, sir. Q. It is incident to and belongs to east for $6,000. After the explosion the num
the powder business, doesn't it? A. It is necber of barrels in the glaze was reduced from essarily a feature in the process of manufacture, eight to six, thus reducing its capacity from lieve you stated that 99 per cent. of the acci
so far as determined yet by anybody. . Q. I be20,000 to 15,000 pounds. Mr. Olin, a powder dents by powder mill explosions were unavoidexpert, witness for defendant, testified that able and could not be foreseen? A. I sbould the comparative force of the explosion of dit
have qualified that by my own experience.” ferent quantities of powder is in proportion
During the cross-examination of Mr. Gorto the square roots of the quantities.
man, the following occurred: Mr. Sloan, the real estate man of Kansas that do you? A. Yes, I admit that, too.
"Q. Because powder is dangerous-you admit City, who acted for the defendant in pur- | When is it the most dangerous-at the time the chasing the land in 1904 for the plant, testi- mill is running or not? A. I don't know any fied on cross-examination that in the last few particular time.” years lands south of Kansas City extending He also testified that 40 per cent. grade beyond defendant's plant had increased in dynamite is 28 times as powerful as blasting value rapidly, the growth of the city and powder. The defendant put in evidence the street car extension being in that direction. following statement of its business: He further testified as follows:
Investment. "Q. In your judgment as a real estate man, Mr. Sloan, would you consider property in that Duplicate machine and supplies $ 1,680 89 neighborhood and vicinity as being desirable as Machinery, building, etc........ 119,413 72
858 75 a place for investors to build rural homes? A. Horses and vehicles...
Land In my judgment, a powder mill would not be an
11,500 00 attraction, Q. It would be a detraction rather
Plant than an attraction ? A. Close to it, it would.
$133,453 36 Q. Well, take within a distance of two miles.
22,789 51 What would you say about that? A. Well, I Advertising and incidental exwould be willing myself to go within two miles
pense (salaries, rent, stationof the powder mill without any apprehension of
55,351 82 fear. Q. Suppose it is in evidence here that this Discount on bank loans, other explosion affected property 2 miles, and 3 miles,
interest items, reconstruction and 4 miles, and 412 miles from this powder
Interest mill. How would you answer my question then
original investabout it affecting property within two miles?
ment, $133,453.36, four years A. Well, I would answer it then this way: If
at 6 per cent. per annum.....
Good will you can show that it afiected property 20 miles,
275,000 00 or 50 miles, then it wouldn't be desirable. If you show that the explosion 100 miles, then it
$545,956 80 wouldn't be desirable. Q. It would affect its Mr. Gorman testified that the forced remarket value, wouldn't it? A. Certainly.” moval of the plant would entirely wipe out
The opinion of the witnesses as to the the good will of defendant's business. value of the lands around the powder mill, on Defendant put in evidence a statement of the basis of what it would be without the the amounts annually expended by it in Kan. presence of the powder plant, placed the land sas City as follows: at from $150 to $400 an acre, varying accord
Money Expended in Kansas City. ing to the character of the land and the opin
Pay roll per annum...... ion of the witnesses. During the cross-ex
$ 30,000 00 Charcoal
7,000 00 amination of Mr. T. T. Moore, a witness for Coal
7.000 00 defendant, the following occurred:
27.000 00 "Q: What do you say as to the effect of the Small parts machinery.
5,000 00 location of this powder mill there-as to the Rent, incidentals, stationery, etc..... 5,000 00 property in that vicinity? A. It certainly dam- Inbound freight per annum....
30,000 00 aged it. Q. How does it affect its sale or market value? A. I should judge it affected it ac
$111.000 00 cording to the proximity to the powder mill. Also a statement of its contract liabilities Q. What is its effect on the property situated for future supplies as follows: nearest to the powder mill? How does it affect that, as compared with those farthest away? A.
Contract Liabilities. I think it almost destroyed the value of those right close to it."
150 tons per month of sodium nitrate con
tracted for last six months 1909, 900 tons, The evidence shows that real estate sales, 2,016,000 lbs., at $2.50 per hundred..... $ 50,400 00 except in Holmes Park, have practically 50 tons per month of sodium nitrate conceased in that vicinity.
tracted for year 1910, 600 tons, 1,344,000
33,600 00 The trial judge, in a colloquy at the time 150 tons sulphur contracted for last six of making his decision said,
months 1909, 336,000 lbs., at $1.50 per 100 6,040 00 "Well, the evidence shows that the property 750 tons charcoal contracted for to be dearound there would be doubled in value if this
livered between July, 1909, and Decemindustry was destroyed.”
ber, 1910, 1,500,000 lbs., at 60 cents per
9,000 00 Three of defendant's witnesses, expert pow- 250,000 kegs contracted for to be delivered der men, including Mr. Gorman, the presi between July, 1909, and May, 1910........ 27,500 00 dent of the defendant company, testified that
$125,540 00 powder is dangerous. One of them, Mr. Olin, testified as follows:
The evidence for the defendant showed "Q. Do you know of any way to operate a
that the closing of its business at the present powder mill without the hazard of explosion? | location would result in the loss of 75 or
80 per cent. of the value of its machinery, tial in determining whether a powder house and apparatus.
amounts to a nuisance;. but, considering the The deposition of Elliott W. Major, who the book in which it is found, it is not entitled
loose manner in which this case is reported, and was Attorney General at the date of the in- to much, if any, consideration. The case of the stitution of the suit, was read, showing that King v. Taylor (Str. 1167) was also cited, but the original petition in the case was present it throws no light on the question; it states ed to him by Mr. J. McD. Trimble, counsel merely, the fact that the court of King's Bench
granted an information against the defendant, for the relators, on January 15 or 16, 1909, as for a nuisance, for keeping great quantities also some affidavits and a plat showing facts of gunpowder to the endangering the church and bearing on the propriety of such suit. That houses where he lived." he took the matter under advisement for sev
He concluded his opinion by saying: “The eral days, then signed the petition and caus-fears of mankind will not alone create a ed it to be filed. The legal services for nuisance, without the existence of real danplaintiff in the trial court and in this court ger.” In 1844, Myers v. Malcolm, 6 Hill (N. have been rendered by counsel employed by Y.) 292, 41 Am. Dec. 744, was decided. About relators.
600 pounds of powder were kept in the vil
lage of Syracuse. The language of the opinElliott W. Major, of Jefferson y, and
ion in that case is not clear as to whether J. McD. Trimble, Jno. A. Eaton, and Dud.
negligence was necessary. ley W. Eaton, all of Kansas City, for appel
In 1816 Crowder v. Tinkler, 19 Ves. 616, lants. Kinealy & Kinealy, of St. Louis, and
was decided in the English Court of ChanE. Wright Taylor, of Kansas City, for re
cery. Plaintiff conducted paper mills, and spondent.
defendants were operating a powder mill.
Both mills had existed for 51 years. At first ROY, C. (after stating the facts as above). defendants' corning mill was 209 yards from  A powder magazine, as to all property the paper mills. Thirty-seven years before and residents in such proximity to it that the suit was brought the corning mill exthey are subject to danger from its explo- ploded, and was rebuilt at the distance of sion, is a nuisance regardless of the ques- 400 yards from the paper mills. Just before tion as to negligence in the manner of keep the suit defendants proceeded to rebuild it ing it.
on the old site. The court said: An anonymous case was decided by Chief
"It is conceived that at common law the erecJustice Holt in the King's Bench, in the year tion of a corning house of this sort, if attended 1700, nisi prius, reported in 12 Mod. 342. with danger to the public, would not be a The defendant was indicted for a nuisance nuisance. To that I do not agree; as, though
gunpowder is an article of recent origin, the for keeping several barrels of gunpowder in principle of law is that any subject of modBrentford Town, sometimes two days, some- ern discovery cannot be used in such a mantimes a week, till he could conveniently send ner as to constitute nuisance merely on the them to London. Held, that, though gun-covery. The instance has occurred of a convic
ground that the materials are of modern dispowder be a necessary thing, and for defense tion upon a prosecution for employing a reserof the kingdom, yet if he kept it in such a voir gas in a place where an explosion might be place as it is dangerous to the inhabitants dangerous to the King's subjects or their prop
erty." or passengers, it will be a nuisance. That case does not require that there shall be any
Cheatham v. Shearon, 1 Swan (Tenn.) 213, negligence in keeping the powder, nor does 55 Am. Dec. 734, decided in 1851, was for it make any requirement as to how many damages caused by the explosion of a pow. passengers or inhabitants shall be subject der magazine in thė town of Nashville, conto the danger.
taining 500 kegs of powder. The court, In Rex v. Taylor, 2 Str. 1167, the Court speaking of the anonymous case above menof King's Bench, in 1742, granted an infor- tioned, said: mation against the defendant as for a nui.
"Chief Justice Kent refers to this case, as resance, on affidavits of his keeping great quan- v. Sands, 1 Johns. [N. Y.] 78 [3 Am. Dec. 296]
ported in 12 Mod. 342, in the case of the People tities of gunpowder, to the endangering the and discredits it, because of the loose manner church and houses where he lived.
in which it is reported and'the book in which Roger Williams was convicted of keeping tinctly asserting that if gunpowder be kept in a
it is found. We understand the case as dis400 barrels of gunpowder near the town of place dangerous to the inhabitants, it is a nuiBradford. Rex v. Williams, E. 12 W.
And Lord Holt's report of it entitles it In People v. Sands, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 78, to full weight, as the judgment of one of the 3 Am. Dec. 296, decided in 1806, the defend- ablest common lawyers that ever sat in West
minster Hall." ant was indicted for keeping 50 barrels of
And it was held that a powder magazine gunpowder at Brooklyn, near the dwelling
containing a large quantity of powder in a houses of divers citizens and near a certain public street. Chief Justice Kent held that populous place is a nuisance per se. it was necessary to show negligence in the 18 B. Mon. (57 Ky.) 800, 68 Am. Dec. 750,
In 1857, the case of Dumesnil v. Dupont, manner of keeping the powder, and in speak
was a proceeding to abate as a nuisance a ing of the anonymous case, supra, said:
"This case, as far as it is any authority, goes powder house on the plank road within half in confirmation of the principle that the time, a mile of the limits of the city of Louis
residence, and but a short distance of his, the consequences, or set bounds to the injury, neighbor's houses. The quantity of powder which, being instantaneous, extends alike to kept was merely stated to be large. The de- property and persons within its reach. The de
structiveness of these agents results from the ir. cision was for the defendant, following Peo- repressible gases once set in motion, infinitely ple v. Sands and repudiating Cheatham v. more than from fires which might ensue as a conShearon. Concerning the latter case, the sequence. Persons and property in the neighborcourt said:
hood of a burning building, let it burn ever so
fiercely, in most cases bave a chance of escaping “This decision cannot be regarded as authority injury. Not so when explosive forces instantly in the case before us for several reasons: First. prostrate everything near them, as in the inBecause it was rendered in an action on the stances of powder, nitroglycerin and other chemcase brought by the owner of certain houses in icals of an explosive or instantly inflammable Nashville, to recover for injuries done to them nature." by the explosion of a powder house owned by the defendant situated in a populous part of the Then came the following cases, all bold. town. The two cases are therefore essentially ing that negligence is not necessary: McAndifferent, both with regard to the facts involved drews v. Collerd, 42 N. J. Law, 189, 36 Am. and to the nature of the relief sought. Secondly. Because the principles and reasoning upon Rep. 508; Heeg v. Licht, 80 N. Y. 579, 36 Am. which the decision rests are opposed to the un. Rep. 654; Emory v. Hazard Powder Co., 22 broken curre of modern authority, English and S. C. 476, 53 Am. Rep. 730; Laflin & Rand American, upon this subject."
Powder Co. v. Tearney, 30 Ill. App. 321; That was a sweeping assertion made as Chicago W. & V. Coal Co. v. Glass, 34 Ill. to the English and American authorities. App. 364; Laflin & Rand Powder Co. v. No English case was cited. We have here Tearney, 131 Ill. 322, 23 N. E. 389, 7 L. R. cited them, and have shown that they are A. 262, 19 Am. St. Rep. 34; Lounsbury v. against the opinion in Dumesnil v. Dupont. Foss, 80 Hun, 296, 30 N. Y. Supp. 89; Wilson The only American case there cited support- v. Phænix Powder Mfg. Co., 40 W. Va. 413, ing the assertion is People v. Sands, supra, 21 S. E. 1035, 52 Am. St. Rep. 890; Reilly and the Sands Case has long since been repu- v. Erie R. Co., 72 App. Div. 476, 76 N. Y. diated in effect by the courts of New York, Supp. 620; Remsberg v. Cement Co., 73 Kan. as will be hereafter seen.
66, 84 Pac. 548; Bradford Glycerin Co. v. In the same year that Dumesnil v. Dupont St. Mary's Woolen Mfg. Co., 60 Ohio State, was decided, the error of the court in that 560, 54 N. E. 528, 45 L. R. A. 658, 71 Am. case was clearly shown by the decision in St. Rep. 740; Ricker v. Shaler, 89 App. Div. Regina v. Lister in the Queen's Bench 300, 85 N. Y. Supp. 825; State v. Paggett, 8 (Dearsly v. Bell's Crown Cases, 209), in which wash. 579, 36 Pac. 487; Kerbaugh v. Caldit was said:
well, 151 Fed. 194, 80 C. C. A. 470, 10 Ann. "The indictment certainly does not state that Cas. 453. any noxious effluvia issued from the naphtha, or
The rule that it is not necessary to show that the air was corrupted by it, or that any bodily harm was done by it to any of the negligence is affirmed in Kinney v. Koopman, Queen's subjects; but we conceive that to de- 116 Ala. 310, 22 South, 593, 37 L. R. A. 497, posit and keep such a substance in such quanti- 67 Am. St. Rep. 119; Collins v. Railroad, 104 ties in a warehouse so situate, to the danger of the lives and property of the Queen's sub-Ala. 390, 16 South. 140; Kleebauer v. Westjects, is an indictable offense. The law of the ern Fuse & Explosives Co., 138 Cal. 497, 71 country would surely be very defective if life and Pac. 617, 60 L. R. A. 377, 94 Am. St. Rep. 62. property could be so exposed to danger by the
It is thus seen that the courts of New York act of another with impunity. There is no ground for saying that, according to the doctrine have repudiated, in effect at least, the posicontended for by the prosecutor's counsel, nei- tion of Chief Justice Kent in People v. Sands, ther brandy nor wine, nor oil, nor any ignitible and are in harmony with the English courts. substance, could be kept in the cellar of a town Ten states of our Union and the federal house without the owner of the house being liable to fine and imprisonment. The substance court agree on that proposition, while only must be of such a nature, and kept in such those of Kentucky, Alabama, and California
rge antities, and under such local circum; hold to the contrary.
In Emory V. Hazard Powder Co., supra, danger which would alarm men of steady nerves the court said: and reasonable courage, passing through the street in which the house stands, or residing in a matter that makes it a nuisance, but it is
"It is not the number of persons affected by adjeining houses, is enough to show that some- its injurious, offensive, and noxious character; thing has been done which the law ought to pre- and it is none the less a nuisance because it vent by pronouncing, it to be a misdemeanor. affects only one or two instead of a multitude. Accordingly, to manufacture, or to keep in large There may be a private as well as a public quantities, in towns or closely inbabited places, nuisance, the distinction being dependent upon gunpowder (which for this purpose cannot be the number affected, but the fact of nuisance distinguished from naphtha) is by the common itself does not depend upon number.” law of England a nuisance and an indictable offense."
Harper v. Standard Oil Co., 78 Mo. App. In Wier's Appeal, 74 Pa. 230, the court 358, is cited as holding that it is necessary said:
to show negligence. The defendant in that "It is not on the ground alone of their lia-case was sued for damages for keeping gasobility to fire, primarily, or even secondarily, line and coal oil in large tanks near plain. that they may possibly be dealt with as nui- tiff's property, and the danger alleged was sances, but on account of their liability to explosion by contact with the smallest spark of not of explosion, but of fire. We are not disfire, and the utter impossibility to guard against cussing the law as to mere combustibles, but
confine ourselves to explosives. It is true, state does not place it above a citizen or that coal oil and gasoline may become gas, corporation of this state. Rev. Stat. $ 3037. and thus become explosive, but they were it still remains subject to the laws as to not in that condition in the Harper Case. nuisances.
We thus see that the overwhelming weight  III. It is a public nuisance. Joyce on of authority supports the conclusion we have Nuisances, § 5, says: reached that powder is gerous however "A public or common nuisance is an offense carefully kept. If there were any doubt on against the public order and economy of the that question as a matter of law, it is proved state, by unlawfully doing any act or by omit
ting to perform any duty which the common to be a fact by three of the defendant's own good, public decency, or morals, or the public expert witnesses, who say that powder is right to life, health, and the use of property redangerous, one of them saying that he knew quires, and which at the same time annoys, of no way of operating the mill without the with, or obstructs 'the rights or property of the
injures, endangers, renders insecure, interferes danger of explosion. And that is the case whole community or neighborhood, or of any whether the powder is in the mill or maga-considerable number of persons, even though zine.
the extent of the annoyance, injury, or damage But counsel for respondent say that there may be unequal, or may vary in its effect up
on individuals. Another factor in defining a is a mere possibility, and not probability, nuisance is that consideration should be given of an explosion, and that such mere possibili- to places where the public have the legal right ty will not constitute a nuisance. They cite to go or congregate, or where they are likeDumesnil v. Dupont, supra, which does use
ly to come within the sphere of its influence. A
nuisance is not public though it may injure a such language. We have declined to follow great many persons, the injury being to the inthat case in its conclusion, and shall not dividual property of each. A nuisance is pubadopt the language used in reaching such er- lic when it affects the rights enjoyed by citizens
as part of the public, as the right of navigatroneous result.
ing a river, or traveling a public highway; A powder magazine may cause damage in rights to which every citizen is entitled." two ways: By explosion, which can only oc On that proposition the authorities are cur at irregular intervals; by danger, which practically agreed. The evidence shows that is always present as to property and persons within the circle of danger there are public near enough. That danger, of itself, with-roads, two villages with post offices, a railout an actual explosion constitutes it a nui- road over which two railroad systems run sance.
numerous trains, a public schoolhouse, and In the anonymous case, supra, which is an entire community. The defendant put in the very fountain of the law on this subject, evidence a list of 38 persons to whom it paid the Chief Justice said, “To support this in- damages caused by the explosion of Novemdictment there must be apparent danger or ber 12, 1908. mischief already done." The apparent dan  IV. Respondent says that this suit is ger is sufficient.
not prosecuted by the state of Missouri or its  II. Defendant makes the claim that be Attorney General, but by individuals in the cause it is licensed to do business in Missouri, name of the state, and that the Attorney Genand because it is conducting a lawful busi- eral has no power to permit this to be done. ness and its products are useful and neces. The petition itself shows that it is brought sary for the public welfare and defense, by the Attorney General. The evidence shows therefore its plant should not be adjudged a that the Attorney General satisfied himself nuisance.
as to the propriety of the suit, signed the pe3 Blackstone, p. 217, says:
tition which had been prepared by counsel for "A like injury is, if one's neighbor sets up the relators, and authorized it to be filed. and exercises any offensive trade; as a tan- The result shows the propriety of this action. ner's, a tallow chandler's, or the like; for though these are lawful and necessary trades. The fact that the legal services for the plainyet they should be exercised in remote places; tiff in the trial court and in this court were for the rule is, ‘Sic utere tuo ut alienum non rendered by counsel employed and paid by lædas' (So use your property that you do not the relators does not affect the question. injure that of another)."
 V. We now enter upon the consideration Joyce on Nuisances, $ 16, says: "A business lawful in itself cannot be a nui- without the exercise of great care and cau
of the question that should never be decided sance per se, although, because of surrounding places or circumstances, or because of the man- tion. A court of equity must always usě a ner in which it is conducted, it may become a wise discretion in granting injunctions. nuisance. Certain kinds of business or struc- Counsel for respondents say that we should tures, as powder houses or nitroglycerin works, are so dangerous to human life that they may consider the “relative advantages and disadbe maintained only in the most remote and se- vantages to the parties concerned.” If it is cluded localities."
meant by that assertion that substantial, cerIn the anonymous case above mentioned it tain, and irreparable damages to the plaintiff, was said that a powder magazine in a dan- which might be prevented by injunction, are gerous place is a nuisance even though pow- to be left without remedy because of the fact der is necessary for the defense of the king- that greater damages and disadvantages dom. "Misplaced benefactions are male- would result to the defendant, a wrongdoer, factions." De Officiis, Lib. 2, cap. 18. by the issuing of the injunction, we are drivDefendant's license to do business in this en to emphatically say no.
We find the facts to be that the defendant's owners in the depreciation of their lands. glaze at the time of its explosion contained But it is a loss which no court can contem. about 20,000 pounds of powder. As operated plate without an impulse to prevent it by any since then, it contains about 15,000 pounds. legitimate means. There was during the year 1908 an average In 1904, the growth of Kansas City co-opof over 400,000 pounds in the powder maga- erating with the general enhancement of zine. The dyna te on hand runs from com- values, began to rapidly increase the value paratively a small amount to 20,000 pounds or of lands in that rural community, just ready more. Each one of these three places is a to assume a suburban character. The peo puisance, dangerous in itself, and the danger ple there knew nothing of powder works, of each is increased by the proximity of the The defendant was organized by men who others. The explosion of the glaze damaged were powder experts. They knew its dangers a passenger train and injured the people in to the community, and they knew of the danit. Its effect on the schoolhouse was such ger that they might be enjoined. Their conas would have severely injured the pupils tract with the railroad company shows that had it been in school hours. Large met- fact, and it can be reasonably presumed in al shafts were thrown great distances the absence of such evidence. The defendant across the road and the railroad, and on- deliberately made its choice of location, and to the adjoining lands, and a plate glass we are called upon to say that the disastrous window in Grand View, four miles away, was results of that choice shall fall upon innocent destroyed. A cistern at Hickman's Mills, over sufferers rather than on the one who invoked a mile and a quarter away, was cracked. the disaster. If the damages caused were Window glass and sash, doors, plaster, flues, not substantial, we could refuse to interfere. and roofs were broken and injured within a If they could be remedied at law, that course radius of two or three miles, the damage should be pursued; but that cannot be done. diminishing by distance. Dangerous frag- This is a proceeding to abate a public nuiments of all kinds were thrown on the adjoin-sance, detrimental to a large community, to ing lands. A few frame buildings have been travelers on the public roads and on the rail. constructed in Holmes Park by reason of the roads, and to the public school. There is no business growing out of the defendant's practical way in which those interests can be factory. In all other respects, building and adequately protected except by abating the real estate business within the circle of nuisance. danger have practically ceased. The trial Respondent cites Bailey v. Culver, 84 Mo. judge who found the issues for the defend- 531, loc. cit. 540 But in that case the court ant was impelled to say that the value of the said: land adjoining defendant's plant has been “The right of the plaintiffs, if regard be had depreciated thereby one-half. We have made to the findings and action of the lower courts, a calculation based on the depreciation of is doubtful; the damage which they will susvalue. For illustration, we have placed a de- tain, if any, is inconsiderable, while if their
prayer were heard and granted, it would be preciation of $75 an acre on all land except disastrous in the extreme to the defendants, rethe defendant's within a radius of a half sulting in tbe practical destruction of their mile from the glaze as a center; $37.50 on building, without any material advantages ac
cruing to the plaintiffs." all land in the next half mile zone; $12.50 on all within the next mile zone. It aggregates
So it will be found that where the compar. over $160,000. We do not hold that such ative injury or inconvenience has resulted in amount is the exact one; but we feel con
the refusal of relief, it has been where the fident that it is the minimum that could be plaintiff's injuries were trivial, uncertain, or reasonably fixed. It is bound to increase remediable by suit at law, or else there have rapidly as the city grows in that direction. been other considerations which are not in Defendant calls attention to the small this case. The correct principle was declared amount of damages paid for broken glass and
by Judge Sawyer in Woodruff V. North other things. If that were all, we could Bloomfield Gr. Mining Co. (C. C.) 18 Fed. loc. easily dismiss plaintiff's bill under the doc- cit. 807, as follows: trine, “De minimis non curat lex." But the "Of course, great interests should not be mere replacing of the apparent, superficial where the maxim 'De minimis non curat lex,
overthrown on trilling or frivolous grounds, as damage where a house has been wrecked by is applicable, but every substantial, material such an explosion does not make the building right of person or property is entitled to prowhat it was formerly. Its integrity is de- tection against all the world. It is by protectstroyed and confidence in it is lost. Ordina- ing the most humble in his small estate against
the encroachments of large capital and large inrily prudent people will not buy or build sub- terests that the poor man is ultimately enabled ject to such danger.
to become a capitalist himself. If the smaller The evidence shows that the defendant, if interest must yield to the larger, all small propcompelled to close its works will lose three-erty rights, and all smaller and less important
enterprises, industries, and pursuits would soonfourths the value of its buildings, machinery, er or later be absorbed by the large, more powand equipment, amounting at first cost to erful few; and their development to a condiabout $120,000, making the loss about $90,000, tion of great value and importance, both to
the individual and the public, would be arrested not allowing for depreciation. That is only a in its incipiency. But if the comparison could little over half of what is lost by the land- | be made in this instance, it would be impossible