The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1908-05-13

zs.a,sd b state ressssctlons
The court Says Init there are two
reaapns Why the right of he public
10 control and limit HE use sof pr
nate property 3 petuliarIy applisas
tle ia property III land First such
property IL mt the of Spfoducs
itiye labor but d. dera we'd solely rom
tha State itseif; the OH FINAL owner
second the aanonnt 81 land being ia.
capable ofs increase, u the sownerssot
large tracts can waste them at will
without state restri otlon. the State
and its people may be heipl essly Inn
poyerished and one great purpose Of
government defeated. II 81. IS we do
not think the proposed 3 legislation
would operate TO take. private proper
II within The inhibition Of the Con:
satution. While 1t might restrict the
owner Of Wild and nncultivated5 lands
10 his Suso of them. mi ght delay his
taking come OF the product, might de.
lay; his anticipated profits and even
thereby might cause him some loss
Of profit. It would nevertheless leave
him his lands, their product and in.
crease. untouched, and without dim
mutton OF title, estate, or quantity.
He would still have large measure OF
control and large opportunity to real
Ice values. He might suffer delay
but not deprivation. Il The pro.
posed legislation : would be
within the Legislative power and would
not operate as a taking OF private
property for which compensation mus.
be made,
The court OF errors and appeals OF
New Jersey. has adopted a similar.
view. which has recently been sus-
tanned by the Supreme Count OF the
United States. In delivering the opin.
lon OF the court on April 6.190S. Mr..
Justice Holmes said: '~The State as
quasi-soyereign, and representative OF
the interests OF the public has a stand
Ing in court to protect the atmos-
phere, the water, and the forests with,
In its territory, irrespectiev OF the as
sent or dissent of the private owners
Of the land most Immediately concern
ed. 1t appears to us that few
public interests are more obvious, In.
disputable and independen OF particu..
lar theory than the interest OF the
public Of a State to maintain the riv-
ers that nre wholly within It substan-
TALLY undiminished. except by such
drafts upon them as the guardian o..
the public welfare may permit for the
purpose of turning them to a more
perfect use. This public Interest IS
omnipresent wherever there is a Stat.
and grows more pressing as popula.
! tion grows. we are OF opin.
ion, further, that the constitutional
power OF the State 10 insist that its
natural advantages shall remain I'M.
impaired by is citizens Is not de.
pendent upon any nice estimate OF
the extent OF present use or specu1a.
| ton as to future needs. The legal
conception OF the necessary is apt
| to be confined to somewhat rudimen-
tary5 wants. and there are benefits
from g grent river that might escape
lawyers view. But the State Is not
required to submit even TO an aesthet.
lie analysis. Any analysis may be in.
adequate. It finds itself In posses.
sion OF what all admit to be great
public good. and what is has It may
keep and give no one a reason for it's
will"
These decisions reach the root of
the idea OF conservation OF our re-
sources in the interests OF our people.
Finally, let us. remember that the
conservation of our natural resources.