DISTRICTING 



61 



ated in the residential portion of the city, and where no such reasons 

 exist for high buildings. . 



" We are not prepared to hold that this limitation of eighty to 

 one hundred feet, while in fact a discrimination or classification, is so 

 unreasonable that it deprives the owner of 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, we think, reasonable, and is justified by 

 the police power .... The reasons contained in the opinion 

 of the State court are in our view "sufficient to justify this enactment.' 



Baltimore 



A special act of the Maryland Legislature, passed in 1904, limited the 

 height of buildings within one block of the Washington Monument in the 

 City of Baltimore to 70 feet. At that time the general maximum height 

 limit for the entire city was 175 feet. The districting act was held to be 

 constitutional by the Court of Appeals of Maryland in a decision of June 

 24, 1908 (Cochran vs. Preston, 70 Atl, 113). The appellant in this case 

 claimed that the regulation was an infringement of the constitutional guar- 

 antee of equal protection of the laws and due process of law. The statute 

 applied a special rule to a certain small district, and as to that district, 

 provided an exemption in the case of churches. Moreover, the limitation 

 was not uniform for the district, inasmuch as the district was hilly and 

 the statute provided for a uniform limit of height, not exceeding 70 feet 

 " above the surface oi the street at the base line of the Washington 

 Monument." Under this restriction a higher building could be erected on 

 lower ground than upon higher ground within the district. The appellant 

 claimed also that the restriction was for the purpose of preserving the 

 beauty and architectural symmetry of the environment of Washington 

 Monument, and that, in the exercise o'f the police power, property rights 

 cannot be impaired for purely aesthetic purposes. In sustaining the consti- 

 tutionality of the statute, the court held that its purpose was not purely 

 aesthetic, but for the purpose of protecting from fire handsome buildings 

 and works of art in the locality. 



The court overruled the objection raised on account of lack of uni- 

 formity of application. Owing to the hilly condition of the prescribed 

 territory, persons owning property on lower ground would be able to con- 

 struct higher buildings than those whose property was located on higher 

 ground. This discrimination was also justified on the ground of protection 

 against fire. The exemption of churches from the restriction was also 

 upheld, on the ground that churches " do not present the same danger from 

 fire to the surrounding buildings as many other structures do, chiefly because 

 they are not liable to become very numerous in any one locality." On the 

 general subject of regulation, the 'court states that the use of land must be 

 subject to reasonable regulation, in the interest of the general welfare. 



