712 JOURNAI. OF FORESTRY 



a natural embankment to a valuable, navigable stream, port or harbor, 

 is not such a taking, such an interference with the right and title of 

 the owner, as to give him a constitutional right to co npensation, and 

 to render an act unconstitutional which makes no such provision, but 

 is a just restraint of an injurious use of the property, which the legis- 

 lature have authority to make." 



The reference to Plymouth Beach in this opinion, above noted, is 

 significant in that the opinion says : 



"In consequence of cutting azvay the ivood upon it or from some 

 other cause, it was washed away and broken through by the wind and 

 sea, and the navigation was in danger of being wholly destroyed." 



The .fair inference from the opinion is that it was within the power 

 of the State to have forbidden the cutting of shore-protecting trees as 

 well as to prohibit the removal of sand and gravel serving the same 

 purpose and without compensation to the owner. This case is cited 

 in 159 U. S., 399 as illustrative of the exercise of the police power and 

 without unfavorable criticism of its doctrine. In Hodges v. Ferine 

 (24 Hun., 516), an act of the Legislature (Chap. 190, Laws 18?8) 

 made it a misdemeanor for any person to remove sand or other sim- 

 ilar material from the beach of the South Shore of Staten Island 

 opposite and contiguous to the boulevard from within twenty feet of 

 ordinary high water mark so as to injure such highway. An owner 

 of land within the prohibited area sought an injunction restraining 

 certain persons, acting under authority of this law, from entering on 

 his premises and interfering with their use, and from threatening the 

 crews of vessels loading sand from such beach. A temporary injunc- 

 tion was dissolved, and the validity of the law sustained on the author- 

 ity of the Tewksbury decision above quoted. 



The latest word of our highest court upon the question of the proper 

 exercise of the police power is found in People ex rel Durham Realty 

 Corp. V. La Fetra (230 N. Y., 429), decided in March, 1921. Here 

 was involved the constitutionality of the so-called "Rent Laws" of 

 September, 1920. These enactments wrought radical changes in the 

 law of landlord and tenant, permitting the tenant to retain the use of 

 the demised premises upon his payment of a reasonable rent, the rea- 

 sonableness of such rent being a question of fact, for a jury, although 

 the landlord might be unwilling to continue the lease for such consid- 

 eration. This series of statutes also suspended the landlord's remedy 

 by summary proceedings. The period of operation of these laws was 

 fixed at two years ; and they were passed expressly to meet the emer- 



