1900.] HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. 419 
could have his use of it controlled by the state in the interests of 
the general public. The defendant in the case had been indicted 
and found guilty of violating certain laws of that commonwealth 
which forbade the erection of any wharf or the placing of any 
material for one in certain parts of Boston harbor. 
He had in defiance of law built a wharf on the flats before his 
land, less than a hundred rods from the shore line and so as 
not to impede navigation, but within the harbor lines where such 
structures were forbidden. The ancient charters of the common- 
wealth of Massachusetts gave to such a proprietor along the shore 
the ownership of the soil to low-water mark : 
‘“Where the sea doth not ebb above a hundred rods, and not more 
wheresoever it ebbs further; provided, that such proprietor shall not 
by this liberty have power to stop or hinder the passage of boats or 
other vessels in or through any sea, creeks or coves to other men’s 
houses or lands.” 
The ancient charter granting the right to the proprietor long 
antedated the statute fixing the lines within which it was not per- 
mitted to erect or maintain a wharf. There was no question that 
when the law fixing the harbor, lines was enacted the proprietor 
had an estate in fee simplein the land covered at high tide to the 
extent of one hundred rods out from high-water mark, and subject 
only to a limited right of way to ships and vessels, and that such 
right of way was not impaired by Alger’s wharf. Could the legis- 
lature invade this right with its harbor lines and prescribe how it 
should be used and enjoyed ? 
Chief Justice Shaw says yes: 
“We think it is a settled principle, growing out of the nature of well- 
ordered civil society, that every holder of property, however absolute and 
unqualified his title, holds it under an implied liability that his use of it 
may be so regulated that it shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment 
of others having an equal right to the enjoyment of their property, nor inju- 
rious to the rights of the community. All property in this commonwealth, 
as well that in the interior as that bordering on tidewaters, is derived di- 
rectly or indirectly from the government, and held subject to those gen- 
eral regulations which are necessary to the common good and general 
welfare.” 
‘Rights of property, like all other social and conventional rights, 
are subject to such reasonable limitations in their enjoyment as shall 
prevent them from being injurious, and to such reasonable restraints and 
