with “a public use."[1] It is held by the Supreme Court today that there is a like power where the business is affected with "a public interest."[2] The business of fire insurance has been brought within that category.[3] A recent decision of an inferior court has put within the same category the business of the sale of coal where the emergency of war or of the dislocation that results from war brings hardship and oppression in the train of unfettered competition.[4] The advocates of the recent housing statutes in New York[5] or profess to find in like principles the justification for new restraints upon ancient rights of property. I do not suggest any opinion upon the question whether those acts in any of their aspects may be held to go too far. I do no more than indicate the nature of the problem, and the method and spirit of approach.[6]
- ↑ Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113.
- ↑ German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Kansas, 233 U. S. 389.
- ↑ German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Kansas, supra.
- ↑ American Coal Mining Co. v. Coal & Food Commission, U. S. District Court, Indiana, Sept. 6, 1920.
- ↑ L. 1920, chaps. 942 to 953.
- ↑ Since these lectures were written, the statutes have been sustained: People ex rel. Durham Realty Co, v. La Fetra, 230 N. Y. 429; Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman, 256 U. S. 170.
