Section 5. This Act Shall Take Effect Upon Its Passage.

Approved May 8, 1905.

WELCH vs. SWASEY. 193 Mass. 364

This was a petition for a writ of mandamus addressed to members of the board of appeal from the building commissioner of the city of Boston, ordering the respondents to direct the building commissioner to grant to the petitioners a permit to erect a building to the height of 120 feet, 6 inches. The permit had been refused by the building commissioner on the ground that the proposed structure would exceed the height limit provided by acts 1904, chapter 333, and acts 1905, chapter 383. The petitioners appealed on the ground that the statutes were unconstitutional and void.

The commission appointed by the mayor under chapter 383 of the acts of 1905, made the following orders: (1) In district B buildings may be erected on streets exceeding 64 feet in width to a height equal to one and a quarter times the width of the street on which the building stands, and if situated on more than one street the widest street should be taken, and the height of the building is to be made from the mean grade of the curbs of all streets upon which the building is situated, and not exceeding one hundred feet in any of them. (2) If the street is of uneven width, its width will be considered as the average width opposite the building to be erected. (3) The width of a street shall be held to include the width of any space on the same side of the street upon which a building stands, upon or within which space no building can be lawfully erected by virtue of any building line established by the board of street commissioners, or the board of park commissioners, acting under general or special laws. (4) All streets or portions of streets upon which buildings may be erected on one side only shall be considered as of a width of 80 feet as to that portion upon which building may be erected on one side only. (5) In the case of irregular or triangular open spaces formed by the intersection of streets, the width of the street shall be taken as the width of the widest street entering said space at the point of entrance. (6) No building shall be erected on a parkway, boulevard or public way on which a building line has been established by either of said boards acting under general or special laws to a height greater than allowed by said general or special law nor otherwise in violation of section 3 of said chapter 383, acts of 1905. (7) No building shall be erected to a height greater than eighty feet unless its width on each and every public street on which it stands will be at least one half its height. (8) Nothing in the order shall be construed as affecting any condition or restriction imposed by deed, agreement or by operation of law on any property in said district B.

The said commission further provides that buildings may be erected to a height not exceeding 120 feet in that portion of district B as established by the commission on the height of buildings in its order dated Dec. 3, 1904, which lies 50 feet westerly from the boundary line running from Columbus Av. to the center of Boylston St. separating district B from district A provided that said portion of district B is owned by same persons who own adjoining premises in district A.

KNOWLTON, C. J.: The principal question presented by this case is whether St. 1904, p. 283, c. 333, and St. 1905, p. 309, c. 383, and the orders of the commissioners appointed under them, relative to the height of buildings in Boston, are constitutional. A jurisdictional question, if the petitioner is entitled to relief, is whether a remedy can be given him by a writ of mandamus.

The principal question may be subdivided as follows: First, can the Legislature, in the exercise of the police power, limit the height of buildings in cities so that none can be erected above a prescribed number of feet; second, can it classify parts of a city so that in some parts one height is prescribed and in others a different height; third, if so, can it delegate to a commission the determination of the boundaries of these different parts, so as to conform to the general provisions of the statute; fourth, can it delegate to a commission the making of rules and regulations such as to permit different heights in different places, according to the different conditions in different parts of one of the general classes of territory, made in the original statute; fifth, if it can, are the rules and regulations made by the commissioners within the statute, and within the constitutional authority of the Legislature and its agents?

In the exercise of the police power the Legislature may regulate and limit personal rights and rights of property in the interest of the public health, public morals and public safety. Com. vs. Pear, 153 Mass. 242, 63 N. E. 719; Com. vs. Strauss, 191 Mass. 545, 78 N. E. 136; California Reduction Co. vs. Sanitary Works, 199 U. S. 306-318, 26 Sup. Ct. 100, 50 L. Ed. 204. With considerable strictness of definition, the general welfare may be made a ground, with others, for interference with rights of property, in the exercise of the police power. Com. vs. Strauss, ubi supra.

The erection of very high buildings in cities, especially upon narrow streets, may be carried so far as materially to exclude sunshine, light and air, and thus to affect the public health. It may also increase the danger to persons and property from fire, and be a subject for legislation on that ground. These are proper subjects for consideration in determining whether in a given case, rights of property in the use of land should be interfered with for the public good.... In People vs. D’Oench, 111 N. Y. 359, 18 N. E. 562, a statute limiting the height of dwelling houses to be erected in the city of New York, was treated as unquestionably constitutional. See 1 Abbott, Mun. Corp. 237, 2 Tiedeman on State and Federal Control, 754....

... It is for the Legislature to determine whether the public health or public safety requires such a limitation of the rights of land owners in a given case. Upon a determination in the affirmative, they may legislate accordingly.

The next question is whether the General Court may establish different heights for different neighborhoods, according to their conditions and the uses to which the property in them is put. The statute should be adapted to the accomplishment of the purposes in which it finds its constitutional justification. It should be reasonable, not only in reference to the interests of the public, but also in reference to the rights of land owners. If these rights and interests are in conflict in any degree, the opposing considerations should be balanced against each other, and each should be made to yield reasonably to those upon the other side. The value of land and the demand for space, in those parts of Boston where the greater part of the buildings are used for purposes of business or commerce, is such as to call for buildings of greater height than are needed in those parts of the city where the greater part of the buildings are used for residential purposes. It was, therefore, reasonable to provide in the statute that buildings might be erected to a greater height in the former parts of the city than in the latter, even if some of the streets in the former are narrower than those in the latter.

The general subject is one that calls for a careful consideration of conditions existing in different places. In many cities there would be no danger of the erection of high buildings in such locations and of such a number as to affect materially the public health or safety, and no statutory restrictions are necessary. Such restrictions in this country are of very recent origin, and they are still uncommon. Unless they place the limited height at an extreme point, beyond which hardly any one would ever wish to go, they should be imposed only in reference to the uses for which the real estate probably will be needed, and the manner in which the land is laid out, and the nature of the approaches to it.

It was decided in Com. vs. Boston Advertising Company, 188 Mass. 348, 74 N. E. 601, 69 L. R. A. 817, 103 Am. St. Rep. 494, that a statute of this kind cannot constitutionally be passed for a mere esthetic object. It was said in Attorney General vs. Williams, 174 Mass. 476-480, 55 N. E. 77, that the statute then before the court, enacted under the right of eminent domain, with compensation for landowners, would have been unconstitutional if it had been passed “to preserve the architectural symmetry of Copley Square,” or “merely for the benefit of individual landowners.” The inhabitants of a city or town cannot be compelled to give up rights in property, or to pay taxes, for purely æsthetic objects; but if the primary and substantive purpose of the legislation is such as justifies the act, considerations of taste and beauty may enter in, as auxiliary. We are of opinion that the provision of St. 1904, p. 283, c. 333, for dividing parts of the city into two classes, in each of which there is a prescribed limit for the height of buildings, was within the power of the Legislature, and in accordance with the constitutional principle applicable to the enactment.

The delegation to a commission of the determination of the boundaries of these parts of the two classes was within the constitutional power of the General Court. The work of the commissioners under the first act was not legislation, but the ascertainment of facts, and the application of the statute to them for purposes of administration. Such subsidiary work by a commission is justified in many cases.

* * * * *

The delegation to a commission of the power to fix different heights in different places in the parts included in class B, under St. 1905, p. 309, c. 363, goes further, and allows the commissioners to make rules and regulations which are in the nature of subsidiary legislation. This is within the principle referred to in Brodbine vs. Revere, ubi supra, and in some of the other cases above cited. It is that under our system in Massachusetts, matters of local self-government might always be intrusted to the inhabitants of towns. On the establishment of cities this power is exercised by the city council, or by some board or commission representing the inhabitants. Even in towns such powers have long been exercised by local boards, for example,—by the board of health. Originally such representatives of the local authority were elected by the people; but for many years local boards, appointed by the governor or other executive authority, have sometimes been entrusted with the exercise of this legislative authority. It is true that they are further from the people than the members of a city council, for whom the people vote, but in a true sense they represent the inhabitants in matters of this kind. Our decisions cover this point also. Com. vs. Plaisted and Brodbine vs. Revere, ubi supra. It does not follow that all rules and regulations made under such a delegation of authority would be constitutional, merely because the original statute is unobjectionable. Such rules may be tested by the courts to see whether they are reasonably directed to the accomplishment of the purpose on which the constitutional authority rests, and whether they have a real, substantial relation to the public objects which the government can accomplish. A statute, ordinance or regulation will not be held void merely because the judges differ from the legislators as to the expediency of its provisions. But if it is arbitrary and unreasonable, so as unnecessarily to be subversive of rights of property, it will be set aside by the courts....

We do not see that the action of the commissioners, under St. 1905, was beyond their power under the Constitution. It was seemingly in accordance with the general purpose of the Legislature, and was directed to considerations which they deemed proper in adjusting the rights and interests of property owners and the public. The question is not whether the court deems all the provisions wise; but whether they appear to be outside of the constitutional power of the commission. In prescribing heights in the district, the commissioners might make the width of the streets on which a building was to be erected one factor to be considered. Their action in this particular relates wholly to buildings in class B, which includes only the residential parts of the city.

We cannot say that the prohibition of the erection of a building of a greater height than 80 feet in class B, unless its width “on each and every public street on which it stands will be at least one-half its height,” was entirely for æsthetic reasons. We conceive that the safety of adjoining buildings, in view of the risk of the falling of walls after a fire, may have entered into the purpose of the commissioners. We are of opinion that the statutes and the orders of the commissioners are constitutional.

We think that the court has jurisdiction to dispose of the case in the merits, under this petition for a writ of mandamus. The wrong alleged is that the building commissioner, and afterwards the board of appeal, refused to give the petitioner a permit to erect a building. It is conceded that he was not entitled to a permit if the statutes and orders referred to are constitutional. The petitioner alleges that the board of appeal refused to do their duty, and that his only effectual remedy is by a writ of mandamus, ordering them to grant a permit. The case comes within the general rule giving jurisdiction to issue such writs. Farmington River Water Power vs. County Commissioners, 112 Mass. 206-212; Carpenter vs. County Commissioners, 21 Pick. 258-259; Attorney General vs. Boston, 123 Mass. 460. See Locke vs. Selectmen of Lexington, 122 Mass. 290; Attorney General vs. Northampton, 143 Mass. 589, 10 N. E. 450.

The building commissioner and the board of appeals are not judicial officers. St. 1892, p. 471, c. 419; St. 1894, p. 494, c. 443. The fact that a refusal to act is founded on a mistake of law does not preclude a remedy by a writ of mandamus. In cases where the duty to perform an act depends solely on the question whether a statute or ordinance is constitutional and valid, the question may sometimes be determined on a petition for a writ of mandamus. Attorney General vs. Boston, 123 Mass. 450; Warren vs. Charlestown, 2 Gray, 84; Larcom vs. Olin, 160 Mass. 102-110, 35 N. E. 113.

Petition dismissed.

WELCH, TRUSTEE, vs. SWASEY, et al. 29 U. S. Supreme Court Reporter. 567, Oct., 1908

In error to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts to review a judgment denying a mandamus to compel the board of appeal from the building commissioner of the city of Boston to issue a building permit. Affirmed.

Statement by Mr. Justice Peckham:

The plaintiff in error duly applied to the justices of the supreme judicial court of the state of Massachusetts for a mandamus against the defendants, who constitute a board of appeal from the building commissioner of the city of Boston, to compel the defendants to issue a permit to him to build on his lot on the corner of Arlington and Marlborough streets, in that city. The application was referred by the justice presiding to the full court, and was by it denied (193 Mass. 364, 118 Am. St. Rep. 523, 79 N. E. 745), and the plaintiff has brought the case here by writ of error.

The action of defendants in refusing the permit was based on the statutes of Massachusetts, chap. 333 of the Acts of 1904, and chap. 383 of the Acts of 1905. The reason for the refusal to grant the building permit was because the building site for the proposed building was situated in one of the districts B, as created under the provisions of the acts mentioned, in which districts the height of the buildings is limited to 80, or, in some cases, to 100 feet, while the height of buildings in districts A is limited to 125 feet. The height of the building which plaintiff in error proposed to build and for which he asked the building permit was stated by him in his application therefor to be 124 feet, 6 inches.

The designation of what parts in districts B and upon what conditions a building could be therein erected more than 80 while not more than 100 feet high was to be made by a commission, as provided for in the act of 1905, and the commission duly carried out the provisions of the act in that respect. The sole reason for refusing the permit was on account of the proposed height of the building being greater than the law allowed.

The plaintiff in error contended that the defendants were not justified in their refusal to grant the permit, because the statutes upon which their refusal was based were unconstitutional and void; but he contended that, if they were valid, the defendants were justified in their refusal.

The court, while deciding that mandamus was a proper remedy, held that the statutes and the reports of the commissions thereunder were constitutional.

* * * * *

Mr. Justice Peckham delivered the opinion of the court:

The ground of objection of plaintiff in error to this legislation is that the statutes unduly and unreasonably infringe upon his constitutional rights (a) as to taking of property without compensation; (b) as to denial of equal protection of the laws.

Plaintiff in error refers to the existence of a general law in Massachusetts, applicable to every city therein, limiting the height of all buildings to 125 feet above the grade of the street (Acts of 1891, Chap. 355), and states that he does not attack the validity of that act in any respect, but concedes that it is constitutional and valid. See also on same subject. Acts of 1892, Chap. 419, Par. 25, making such limitation as to the city of Boston. His objection is directed to the particular statutes because they provide for a much lower limit in certain parts of the city of Boston, to be designated by a commission, and because a general restriction of height as low as 80 or 100 feet over any substantial portion of the city is, as he contends, an unreasonable infringement upon his rights of property; also that the application of those limits to districts B, which comprise the greater part of the city of Boston, leaving the general 125-feet limit in force in those portions of the city which the commission should designate (being the commercial districts), is an unreasonable and arbitrary denial of equal rights to the plaintiff in error and others in like situation.

Stating his objections more in detail, the plaintiff in error contends that the purposes of the acts are not such as justify the exercise of what is termed the police power, because, in fact, their real purpose was of an esthetic nature, designed purely to preserve architectural symmetry and regular sky lines, and that such power cannot be exercised for such a purpose. It is further objected that the infringement upon property rights by these acts is unreasonable and disproportioned to any public necessity, and also that the distinction between 125 feet for the height of buildings in the commercial districts described in the acts, and 80 to 100 feet in certain other or so-called residential districts, is wholly unjustifiable and arbitrary, having no well-founded reason for such distinction, and is without the least reference to the public safety, as from fire, and inefficient as means to any appropriate end to be attained by such laws.

In relation to these objections the counsel for the plaintiff in error, in presenting his case at bar, made a very clear and able argument.

Under the concession of counsel, that the law limiting the height of building to 125 feet is valid, we have to deal only with the question of the validity of the provisions stated in these statutes and in the conditions provided for by the commissions, limiting the height in districts B between 80 and 100 feet.

We do not understand that the plaintiff in error makes the objection of illegality arising from an alleged delegation of legislative power to the commissions provided for by the statutes. At all events, it does not raise a Federal question. The state court holds that kind of legislation to be valid under the state Constitution, and this court will follow its determination upon that question.

We come, then, to an examination of the question whether these statutes with reference to limitations on height between 80 and 100 feet, and in no case greater than 100 feet, are valid. There is here a discrimination of classification between sections of the city, one of which, the business or commercial part, has a limitation of 125 feet, and the other, used for residential purposes, has a permitted height of buildings from 80 to 100 feet.

The statutes have been passed under the exercise of so-called police power, and they must have some fair tendency to accomplish, or aid in the accomplishment of, some purpose for which the legislature may use the power. If the statutes are not of that kind, then their passage cannot be justified under that power. These principles have been so frequently decided as not to require the citation of many authorities. If the means employed, pursuant to the statute, have no real, substantial relation to a public object which government can accomplish, if the statutes are arbitrary and unreasonable, and beyond the necessities of the case, the courts will declare their invalidity.

In passing upon questions of this character as to the validity and reasonableness of a discrimination or classification in relation to limitations as to height of buildings in a large city, the matter of locality assumes an important aspect. The particular circumstances prevailing at the place or in the state where the law is to become operative,—whether the statute is really adapted, regard being had to all the different and material facts, to bring about the results desired from its passage; whether it is well calculated to promote the general and public welfare,—are all matters which the state court is familiar with; but a like familiarity cannot be ascribed to this court, assuming judicial notice may be taken of what is or ought to be generally known. For such reason this court, in cases of this kind, feels the greatest reluctance in interfering with the well-considered judgments of the courts of a state whose people are to be affected by the operation of the law. The highest court of the state in which statutes of the kind under consideration are passed is more familiar with the particular causes which led to their passage (although they may be of a public nature) and with the general situation surrounding the subject-matter of the legislation than this court can possibly be. We do not, of course, intend to say that, under such circumstances, the judgment of the state court upon the question will be regarded as conclusive, but simply that it is entitled to the very greatest respect, and will only be interfered with, in cases of this kind, where the decision is, in our judgment, plainly wrong. In this case the supreme judicial court of the state holds the legislation valid, and that there is a fair reason for the discrimination between the height of buildings in the residential as compared with the commercial districts. That court has also held that regulations in regard to the height of buildings, and in regard to their mode of construction in cities, made by legislative enactments for the safety, comfort, or convenience of the people, and for the benefit of property owners generally, are valid. Atty. Gen. vs. Williams (Knowlton vs. Williams) 174 Mass. 476, 47 L. R. A. 314, 55, N. E. 77. We concur in that view, assuming, of course, that the height and conditions provided for can be plainly seen to be not unreasonable or inappropriate.

In relation to the discrimination or classification made between the commercial and the residential portion of the city, the state court holds in this case that there is reasonable ground therefor, in the very great value of the land and the demand for space in those parts of Boston where a greater number of buildings are used for the purposes of business or commercially than where the buildings are situated in the residential portion of the city, and where no such reasons exist for high buildings. While so deciding, the court cited, with approval. Com. vs. Boston Advertising Co. 188 Mass. 348, 69 L. R. A. 517, 108 Am. St. Rep. 494, 74 N. E. 601; which holds that the police power cannot be exercised for a merely esthetic purpose. The court distinguishes between the two cases, and sustains the present statutes. As to the condition adopted by the commission for permitting the erection, in either of the districts B, that is, the residential portion, of buildings of over 80 feet, but never more than 100, that the width on each and every public street on which the building stands shall be at least one half its height, the court refuses to hold that such condition was entirely for esthetic reasons. The chief justice said: “We conceive that the safety of adjoining buildings, in view of the risk of the falling of walls after a fire, may have entered into the purpose of the commissioners. We are of opinion that the statutes and the orders of the commissioners are constitutional.”

We are not prepared to hold that this limitation of 80 to 100 feet, while in fact a discrimination or classification, is so unreasonable that it deprives the owner of the property of its profitable use without justification, and that he is therefore entitled under the Constitution to compensation for such invasion of his rights. The discrimination thus made is, as we think, reasonable, and is justified by the police power.

It might well be supposed that taller buildings in the commercial section of the city might be less dangerous in case of fire than in the residential portion. This court is not familiar with the actual facts, but it may be that, in this limited commercial area, the high buildings are generally of fireproof construction; that the fire engines are more numerous and much closer together than in the residential portion, and that an unlimited supply of salt water can be more readily introduced from the harbor into the pipes, and that few women or children are found there in the daytime, and very few people sleep there at night. And there may, in the residential part, be more wooden buildings, the fire apparatus may be more widely scattered, and so situated that it would be more difficult to obtain the necessary amount of water, as the residence quarters are more remote from the water front, and that many women and children spend the day in that section, and the opinion is not strained that an undiscovered fire at night might cause great loss of life in a very high apartment house in that district. These are matters which, it must be presumed, were known by the legislature, and whether or not such were the facts was a question, among others, for the legislature to determine. They are asserted as facts in the brief of the counsel for the city of Boston. If they are, it would seem that ample justification is therein found for the passage of the statutes, and that the plaintiff in error is not entitled to compensation for the reasonable interference with his property rights by the statutes. That, in addition to these sufficient facts, considerations of an esthetic nature also entered into the reasons for their passage, would not invalidate them. Under these circumstances there is no unreasonable interference with the rights of property of the plaintiff in error, nor do the statutes deprive him of the equal protection of the laws. The reasons contained in the opinion of the state court are, in our view, sufficient to justify their enactment. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

ABSOLUTE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS

Baltimore, Md. 175 feet. Boston 125 ft. or 2½ times width of widest street on which building fronts in section. 80 ft. in residence section. Charleston, S. C. 125 ft. or 2½ times width of widest street, as in Boston. Chicago 200 ft. Cleveland 200 ft. or 2½ times width of widest street, as in Boston. Erie, Pa. 200 ft. or 2½ times width of widest street, as in Boston. Los Angeles 150 ft. Manchester, N. H. 125 ft. Newark, N. J. 200 ft. Portland, Oregon 160 ft. Scranton, Pa. 125 ft. Worcester, Mass. 125 ft. Denver, Colo. 12 stories. Providence, R. I. 120 ft.

C. “SURVEY LINES”

FURMAN ST. 17 Wendell (N. Y.) 649. 1836

By a law of April 12, 1816, section 18, a survey of the village of Brooklyn was to be made and the resulting map was to constitute a permanent plan for laying out the streets of Brooklyn. The act provided that owners who violated the plan were not to receive damages.

The court, in upholding this provision, found that unless damages were withheld from owners building in designated lines of streets, section 18 of the act would be nugatory. The legislation clearly intended that improvements within the street lines should not be paid for. “By expensive erections an owner otherwise might bring an enormous burden upon others for opening the street.”

* * * * *

This decision was cited with approval and followed in the case of Re Dist. of City of Pittsburgh, decided in 1841, 2 W. & S. 320. This language is found in the opinion: “The mere laying out of streets cannot be said of itself to be a taking of the property of individuals, upon which they are laid out, for public use at some future day, but rather a designation of what may be required for that purpose thereafter, so that the owners of the property may in due time be fully apprised of what is anticipated and regulate the subsequent improvements, which they shall make thereon accordingly.

... Until the actual opening “the owners thereof continue not only to hold the same interest in them, but likewise to have the right to enjoy and in the same manner as they did previously.”

In the case of Bush vs. McKeesport, City, 166 Pa. 57, the court upheld the validity of the following clause: “No person shall hereafter be entitled to recover any damages for any buildings or the improvements of any kind which shall or may be placed or constructed upon or within the lines of any located street or alley, after the same shall have been located or ordered by counsel.”

But the New York court has since come to a different conclusion in the case of Forster vs. Scott, 136 App. Div. 577, and the Massachusetts court has also found against the constitutionality of such a provision. In Forster vs. Scott, the plaintiff had given a deed to the defendant warranting against incumbrances. A proposed street was located on the plaintiff’s land. The court held that this was not an incumbrance since the act of 1882, chapter 419 was unconstitutional in providing that “No compensation shall be allowed for any building, erection or construction which at any time, subsequent to the filing of the maps, plans, etc., may be built in part or in whole upon or through any street, avenue, road, public square, or place.”

“Whenever a law deprives the owner of the beneficial use and free enjoyment of his property, or imposes restraints upon such use and enjoyment that materially affect its value without legal process or compensation it deprives him of his property within the meaning of the constitution.”

EDWARDS vs. BRUORTON, 184 Mass. 529

KNOWLTON, C. J.

“This is an action for breach of a covenant in a deed. A public street called Jersey Street was laid out by the street commissioners of Boston over a part of the premises under authority of statute 1891, c. 323, and the existence of this street constitutes a breach of the covenant in the deed if the statute gave the board authority to lay it out. It is contended that the statute is unconstitutional ... because in section 9 it provides that no compensation shall be given for land taken for a street, if the owner, after the filing of a plan in accordance with the statute, shall erect any building within the boundaries of any way and not remove it when required by the street commissioners.”

* * * * *

“This was intended to prevent any use of property inconsistent with the plan after the filing of a plan and before the laying out of a way. If it could have that effect, it might materially interfere with the use which an owner might desire to make of his estate for many years after the filing of the plan and before the laying out of a way. The statute provides no compensation for this interference with private property. The legislation can not constitutionally so interfere with the use of property without giving compensation to the owner.”...

“In the act before us, there is no express prohibition of the owner’s use of his property, but it is declared that if he uses it otherwise than in accordance with the plans of the street commissioners it may be taken from him for a way without giving him compensation. This attempt to except him from the general rule in regard to the taking of property under the right of eminent domain is unconstitutional and ineffectual.”

The court then finds that the unconstitutional parts of the statute are not so connected with the rest of the statute as to invalidate it, and that the street laid out under the provisions of the statute became a legally located public way, and that its existence constituted a breach of the covenant in the deed.

D. BILL-BOARDS

Bill-board decisions may be thus classified:

I. Where the ordinance has been held invalid on the ground that its purpose was the removal of the bill-boards for aesthetic reasons and where the character of the bill-boards as nuisances was not raised, the decisions are uniformly against the reasonableness of the ordinance.

People vs. Green, 85 N. Y. App. 400.—The ordinance prohibited the posting of any advertisement whatever upon fences enclosing private property fronting on or adjacent to any public park. There was no claim that the posting of advertisements in any such places was an injury to the morals, health or safety of the city. The ruling was merely against the extension of the police power for aesthetic purposes.

Commonwealth vs. Boston Advertising Co. 188 Mass. 348.—The ordinance prohibited all signs so near a parkway as to be visible to the naked eye and was clearly intended to accomplish aesthetic purposes.

Varney vs. Williams, 100 Pac. Rep. 867.—The ordinance absolutely prohibited maintenance and erection of all bill-boards for advertising purposes. There was no attempt to restrict its operation to bill-boards that were insecure or otherwise dangerous or to advertising that might be indecent. “Bearing in mind that the ordinance does not purport to have any relation to the protection of passers by from injury by reason of unsafe structures, to the diminution of hazard of fire, or to the prevention of immoral displays we find that the one ground upon which the town council may be thought to have acted is that the appearance of bill-boards is or may be offensive to the sight of persons of refined tastes.” The promotion of aesthetic or artistic consideration has never been held to justify an exercise of the police power.

II. Where the court considers the ordinance as an attempt to protect either the health, safety or morals of the community and finds that it is an unreasonable regulation.

State vs. Whitlock, 149 N. C. 542.—The ordinance prohibited the erection of bill-boards on the lot line. The court found that this was an invasion of private rights, since such structures might be built with absolute safety.

Crawford vs. City of Topeka, 51 Kas. 761.—The court, in holding the ordinance unreasonable, said: “In what way can the erection of a safe structure for advertising purposes near the front of a lot endanger public safety any more than a like structure for some other lawful purpose. Perhaps regulations might be made with reference to the manner of construction so as to insure safety but the absolute prohibition would be an unwarranted invasion of private rights.” The unreasonableness of the ordinance is seen when it is considered that the posting of a harmless paper upon a structure changes it from a lawful to an unlawful one. To the same effect are the following cases: Bryan vs. City of Chester, 212 Pa. St. 259; Bill Posting Sign Co., vs. Atlantic City, 71 N. J. Law, 72; Chicago vs. Gunning System, 214 Ill. 628; Passaic vs. Patterson Bill Posting Co., 72 N. J. Law, 285.

II. PROCEDURE IN ACQUIRING LAND BY CONDEMNATION AND IN ASSESSING BENEFITS

AMENDMENT TO CONSTITUTION OF NEW YORK, Art. 1, Sec. 7. Adopted Nov. 4, 1913

When private property shall be taken for any public use, the compensation to be made therefor, when such compensation is not made by the State, shall be ascertained by a jury, by the supreme court, with or without a jury but not with a referee, or by not less than three commissioners, appointed by a court of record, as shall be prescribed by law. Private roads may be opened in the manner to be prescribed by law; but in every case the necessity of the road and the amount of all damage to be sustained by the opening thereof shall be first determined by a jury of free-holders, and such amount, together with the expenses of the proceeding, shall be paid by the person to be benefited. General laws may be passed permitting the owners or occupants of agricultural lands to construct and maintain for the drainage thereof, necessary drains, ditches and dykes upon the lands of others, under proper restrictions and with just compensation, but no special laws shall be enacted for such purposes.

The legislature may authorize cities to take more land and property than is needed for actual construction in the laying out, widening, extending, or relocating parks, public places, highways or streets, provided, however, that the additional land and property so authorised to be taken shall be no more than sufficient to form suitable building sites abutting on such park, public place, highway or street. After so much of the land and property has been appropriated for such park, public place, highway or street as is needed therefor, the remainder may be sold or leased.

Words in italics are new.

ACTS OF NEW YORK, 1911. Chap. 679

AN ACT to amend the Greater New York charter, in relation to the payment of the cost of certain public improvements.

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: