Note 34 — LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE PLAN OF CHICAGO

In the case of Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. People, 212 Ill. 103, 116, the Supreme Court quotes with approval the following language from the American and English Encyclopædia of Law:

“The police power is to be clearly distinguished from the right of eminent domain; and the distinction lies in this: that in the exercise of the latter right, private property is taken for public use and the owner is invariably entitled to compensation therefor, while the police power is usually exerted merely to regulate the use and enjoyment of property by the owner, or, if he is deprived of his property outright, it is not taken for public use, but rather destroyed in order to promote the general welfare of the public, and in neither case is the owner entitled to any compensation for any injury which he may sustain in consequence thereof, for the law considers that either the injury is damnum absque injuria or the owner is sufficiently compensated by sharing in the general benefits resulting from the exercise of the police power.”

This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, 200 U. S. 561.