52 HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS COMMISSION 



of the police power is well stated by Justice Harlan in C, B. & Q. Railway 

 v. Drainage Commissioners, 200 U. S. 561, 592, decided March 5, 1906: 



" The learned counsel for the railroad company seem to think 

 that the adjudications relating to the police power of the state to pro- 

 tect the public health, the public morals and the public safety are not 

 applicable in principle to cases when the police power is exerted for 

 the general well-being of the community apart from any question of 

 the public health, the public morals or the public safety. 

 We cannot assent to the view expressed by counsel. We hold that 

 the police power of a state embraces regulations designed to promote 

 the public convenience or the general prosperity, as well as regula- 

 tions designed to promote the public health, the public morals or 

 the public safety. . . . And the validity of a police regulation 

 must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the 

 character of the regulation, whether arbitrary or reasonable and 

 whether really designed to accomplish a legitimate public purpose." 



Again in Welch v. Swasey, 214 U. S. 91, decided May 17, 1909, the 

 same court through Justice Peckham concurs, at page 106, in the conclusion 

 of the Massachusetts court " 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 and convenience of the people 

 and for the benefit of property owners generally, are valid." Finally in 

 Eubank v. City of Richmond, 33 Supt. Ct. 76, decided December 2, 1912, 

 Justice McKenna reiterates that the police power extends " not only to 

 regulations which promote the public health, morals and safety, but to those 

 which promote the public convenience or the general prosperity." 



The New York Court of Appeals has taken substantially the same view 

 of the scope of the police power. In People v. King, 110 N. Y. 418, Judge 

 Andrews says (at page 423) : " By means of this power the legislature 

 exercises a supervision over matters involving the common weal and enforces 

 the observance, by each individual member of society, of the duties which 

 he owes to others and the community at large. It may be exerted whenever 

 necessary to secure the peace, good order, health, morals and general wel- 

 fare of the community. ... In short, the police power covers a wide 

 range of particular unexpressed powers reserved to the state affecting free- 

 dom of action, personal conduct and the use and control of property." 



It is thus seen that the police power is broad and comprehensive. Yet 

 it is by no means unlimited. A controlling limitation is that every resort 

 to it should commend itself to the sober judgment as necessary, appropriate 

 and reasonable, the infringement of private right being not disproportionate 

 to the real public gain. 



Freund in his treatise on the Police Power well states that a study of 

 the various cases in which the police power has been applied " will reveal 

 the police power not as a fixed quantity but as the expression of social, 



