R. A. 440; contra, Nickey v. Stearns os Co., 126 Cal. 150, 58 Pac. 459 ; Henry v. Thomas, 119 Mass. 583 ; Anderson v. Baker, 98 Ind. 587; sewers; Hildreth v. City of Lowell, 11 Gray (Mass.) 345; wharves ; Cur ran v. City of Louisville, 83 Ky. 628; Kings land v. City of New York, 110 N. Y. 569, 18 N. E. 435; In re City of New York, 135 N. Y. 253, 31 N. E. 1043, 31 Am. St. Rep. 825; ferries; Day v. Stetson, 8 Greenl. (Me.) 365; Stark v. McGowen, 1 N. McC. (S. C.) 387; irrigation ; Umatilla Irr. Co. v. Barnhart, 22 Or. 389, 30 Pac. 37; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 4 Pac. 919, 10 Pac. 674; Fallbrook Irr. Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 17 Sup. Ct. 56, 41 L. Ed. 369; Gutierres v. Land & Co., 188 U. S. 545, 23 Sup. Ct. 338, 47 L. Ed. 588; Clark v. Nash, •198 U. S. 361, 25 Sup. Ct. 676, 49 L. Ed. 1085, 4 Ann. Cas. 1171; Borden v. Irr. Co., 204 U. S. 667, 27 Sup. Ct. 785, 51 L. Ed.. 671; Irrigation Co. v. Klein, 63 Kan. 484, 65 Pac. 684; Prescott Irr. Co. v. Flathers, 20 Wash. 454, 55 Pac. 635; levees; Missouri, K. & T. By. Co. v, Cambern, 66 Kan. 365, 71 Pac. 809 ; forts, armories or arsenals; Kohl v. U. S., 91 U. S. 367, 23 L. Ed. 449 ; U. S. v. Fox, 94,U. S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192; Gilmer v. Lime Point, 18 Cal. 229; navy yards ; In re League Island, 1 Brewst. (Pa.) 524; military camps ; Morris v. Comptroller, 54 N. J. L. 268, 23 Atl. 664; turnpikes ; In re Mount Washington Road Co., 35 N. H. 134; State v. Maine, 27 Conn. 641, 71 Am. Dec. 89 ; bridges; _Young v. Buckingham, 5 Ohio 485; In re Towanda Bridge Co., 91 Pa. 216; _Young v. McKenzie, 3 Ga. 31; Crosby v. Han over, 36 N. H. 404 ; Palmer v. State, Wright (Ohio) 364; the criterion being, whether the public may use by right, or only by permis sion, and not to whom the tolls are paid; Arnold v. Bridge Co., 1 Duv. (Ky.) 372; cemeteries ; Edgecumbe v. City of Burling ton, 46 Vt. 218 ; Balch v. County Com'rs, 103 Mass. 106; Edwards v. Cemetery Ass'n, 20 Conn. 466; even if the price of the lots there in differ ; Evergreen Cemetery Ass'n of New Haven v. Beecher, 53 Conn. 551, 5 Atl. 353 ; but not if used exclusively for members of a private corporation; In re Deansville Cem etery. Ass'n, 66 N. Y. 569, 23 Am. Rep. 86 ; a restaurant at a summer resort; Prospect Park & C. I. R. Co. v. Williamson, 91 N. Y. 552 ; parks; City of Lexington v. Assembly, 114 Ky. 781, 71 S. W. 943; In re Mayor, etc., of City, of New York, 99 N. Y. 569, 2 N. E. 642; Kansas City v. Ward, 134 Mo. 172, 35 S. W. 600; Holt v. City Council, 127 Mass.
408 ; Gilman v. City of Milwaukee, 55 Wis. 328, 13 N. W. 266 ; Cook v. South Park Com'rs, 61 Ill. 115 ; Kerr v. South Park, 117 u. S. 379, 6 Sup. Ct. 801, 29 L. Ed. 924; Shoe maker v. U. S., 147 U. S. 282, 13 Sup. Ct. 361, 37 L. Ed. 170 ; even if paid for by a county, though beneficial only or mainly to a neigh boring city; St. Louis County Court v. Gris wold, 58 Mo. 175 ; acquiring private proper ty within 200 feet of city parks and park ways in order to protect the same by resale in fee for private use ; Penna. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Philadelphia, 22 Pa. Dist. R. 195, per Sulzberger, J. ; the erection of a memorial hall or monumental statues, arches, and the like, the publication of town histories, dec orations on public buildings, parks designed to provide for fresh air or recreation, edu cate the public taste, or inspire patriotism ; Kingman v. City of Brockton, 153 Mass. 255, 26 N. E. 998, 11 L. R. A. 123. As to play grounds, or places of public recreation, the law is not fully settled ; Nichols, Em. Dom.
§ 234 ; it was held not valid for a theatre ; Sugar v. City of Monroe, 108 La. 677, 32 South.' 961, 59 L. R. A. 723 ; or a private right of fishing in an island pond to provide for fishing as a pastime ; Albright v. Park Commission, 71 N. J. L. 303; 57 AU. 398, 69 L. R. A. 768, 108 Am. St. Rep. 749, 2 Ann. Cas. 48.
Restrictions on the height of buildings, while valid under the police power ; Welch v. Swasey, 193 Mass. 364, 79 N. E. 745, 23 L.. R. A. (N. S.) 1160, 118 Am. St. Rep. 523; have been also upheld to prevent disfiguring the surroundings, when compensation is made ; Attorney General v. Williams, 174 Mass. 476, 55 N. E. 77, 47 L. R. A. 314, af firmed Williams v. Parker, 188 U. S. 491, 23 Sup. Ct. 440, 47 L. Ed. 559; American Unitarian Ass'n v. Corn., 193 Mass. 470, 79 N. E. 878 ; but not otherwise ; Nichols, Em. Dom. § 235, giving cases.
A highway is a public use; Dronberger v. Reed, 11 Ind. 420 ; Haverhill Bridge Propri etors v. Commissioners, 103 Mass. 120, 4 Am. Rep. 518; but it must connect with another highway ; In re Niagara Falls & W. Ry. Co., 108 N. Y. 375, 15 N. E. 429 ; Moore v. Rob erts, 64 Wis: 538, 25 N. W. 564 ; Appeal of Waddell, 84 Pa. 90 ; though at one end only; Schatz v. Pfeil, 56 Wis. 429, 14 N. W. 628 ; Peckham v. Town of Lebanon, 39 Conn. 231; People v. Kingman, 24 N. Y. 559. It may, however, terminate on private property ; At kinson v. Bishop, 39 N. J. L. 226 ; Sheaff v. People, 87 Ill. 189, 29 Am. Rep. 49 ; Goodwin v. Town of Wethersfield, 43 Conn. 437 ; or at a river ; Moore v. Auge, 125 Ind. 562, 25 N. E. 816 ; or at a church ; West Pikeland Road, 63 Pa. 471. So the improvement of a harbor is a public use, (but not the extension of harbor lines to prevent the placing of build ings on either side of a bridge) ; Farist Steel Co. v. City of Bridgeport, 60 Conn. 278, 22 Atl. 561, 13 L. R. A. 590; and the reclama tion of flat land ; 1 Thayer, Cas. Const. L. 1025, n. citing cases. Gas works ; Bloomfield & R. Nat. Gaslight Co. v. Richardson, 63 Barb. (N. Y.) 437; Appeal of Pittsburgh, 123 Pa. 374, 16 Atl. 621; Providence Gas Co. v. Thurber, 2 R., I. 15, 55 Am. Dec. 621; a state military encampment; State v. lieppen heimer, 54 N. J. L. 268, 23 Atl. 664; a public urinal; Badger v. City of Boston, 130 Mass. 170, are public uses. So has been held the production of electric power or light ; Story v. Power Co., 166 Ind. 316, 76 N. E. 1057; Minnesota C. & P. Co. v. Koochiching Co., 97 Minn. 429, 107 N. W. 405, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 638, 7 Ann. Cas. 1182; In re East Canada Creek Electric L. & P. Co., 49 Misc. 565, 99 N. Y. Supp. 109; In re Niagara, L. & 0. Pow er Co., 111 App. Div. 686, 97 N. Y. Supp. 853; Rockingham County L. & P. Co. v. Hobbs, 72 N. H. 531, 58 Atl. 46, 66 L. R. A. 581; Jones v. Electric Co., 125 Ga. 618, 54 S. E. 85, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 122, 5 Ann. Cas. 526 ; though some courts have doubted whether the trans mitting of water power into electricity was such a public use as would wariu.nt the ex ercise of the right of eminent domain ; State v. Power Co., 39 Wash. 648, 82 Pac. 150, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 842, and note, 4 Ann Cas. 987; Minnesota Canal & P. Co. v. Koochiching Co., 97 Minn. 429, 107 N. W. 405, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 638, 7 Ann. Cas. 1182. A department store is not a public use ; Townsend v. Ep stein, 93 Md. 537, 49 Atl. 629, 52 L. R. A. 409, 86 Am. St. Rep. 441; and see Hatfield v. Straus, 189 N. Y. 208, 82 N. E. 172.