710 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



avowed purpose of promotiuCT fhe welfare of the community or a con- 

 siderable part thereof. 



In Indiana, the Legislature has declared by act that "the use of 

 natural gas for illuminating purposes in what are known as ilambeau 

 lights is a wasteful and extravagant use thereof, and is dangerous to 

 the public good." The statute then forbade such use of natural gas 

 and made the violation of the prohibition a misdemeanor. The -same 

 law also prohobited the burning of the lights which might be legally 

 used between 8 a. m. and 5 p. m. That act was upheld as a valid exer- 

 cise of the police power and as properly invoked to conserve the gas 

 supply of the State. (Townsend v. State.. 147 Ind., 624; 49 N. E., 

 19). It should be observed, however, that the court looked upon such 

 gas as similar in character to fish and game, in that it came from a 

 common reservoir underlying the lands of other persons than the de- 

 fendant, each of whom had equal right with him to draw upon such 

 supply, and any particular portion of such accumulation was not the 

 property of any particular person until reduced to possession by him. 

 Hence, as the court there said, one, tapping the common supply, could 

 be so restricted as not to impair an equal right in others. 



Following the principle enunciated in the Indiana case, the Court of 

 Appeals in this State in Hathorn v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co (194 

 N. Y., 326), upheld an act of our Legislature prohibiting the drilling 

 in a specified locality into the rock for the purpose of extracting there- 

 from by artificial means water impregnated with minerals and con- 

 taining in solution a high percentage of carbonic acid gas, for the pur- 

 pose of separating such gas from the water and vending it separate 

 from the water. Here, as in the Indiana case, the court seemed mainly 

 to consider that such water was drawn from a comir.on supply and 

 that a law prohibiting the taking of that water by such methods and 

 in such quantities as to impair the equal rights of others was a valid 

 legislative act. 



The United States Supreme Court in Lindslcy v. Natural Carbonic 

 Gas Co. (220 N. Y., 61), approves the position of the State court with 

 respect to its holding on the so-called anti-pumping law. In this case 

 the contention having been made that the statute was invalid in that 

 it indulged in unfair and inequitable classification, and hence discrimi- 

 nation, the court laid down the following rules with respect to the 

 police power as applicable in that case and which are generally 

 applicable to all attempts at such legislation : 



