The confusion of police power with the power of taxation usually arises in cases where the police power has affixed a pen alty to a certain act, or required licenses for certain occupations to be taken, out and a sum paid, therefor. But this is in no sense taxation, but an attempt to levy a tax which might be open to the constitutional objection of lack of equality. The admitted right to regulate includes the implied power to license or tax ; 13rown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 419, 6 L. Ed. 678; In re Rahrer, 140 U. S. 545, 11 Sup. Ct. 865, 35 L. Ed. 572. See LICENSE ; Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U. S. 183, 20 Sup. Ct. 633, 44 L. Ed. 725; Phillips v. Mobile, 208 U. S. 472, 28 Sup. Ct. 370, 52 L. Ed. 578.
Each law relating to the police power in volves the questions : First, is there a threatened danger? Second, does the regu lation involve a constitutional right? Third, is the regulation reasonable? People v. Smith, 108 Mich. 527, 66 N. W. 382, 32 L. R. A. 853, 62 Am. St. Rep. 715. See Health De partment v. Church, 145 N. Y. 32, 39 N. E. 833, 27 L. R. A. 710, 45 Am. St. Rep. 579.
It extends to all the great public needs; Camfield v. U. S., 167 U. S. 518, 17 Sup. Ct. 864, 42 L. Ed. 260 ; includes the enforcement of commercial conditions such as the protec tion of bank deposits and checks drawn against them, by compelling co-operation among banks in' order to protect depositors of failed banks; Noble State Bk. v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 104, 31 Sup. Ct. 186, 55 L. Ed. 112, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1062, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 487 ; Assaria State Bk. v. Dolley, 219 U. S. 121, 31 Sup. Ct. 189, 55 L. Ed. 123.
An ulterior public advantage may justify a comparatively insignificant taking of pri vate property for what, in its immediate pur pose, is a private use; Bacon v. Walker, 204 U. S. 311, 27 Sup. Ct. 289, 51 L. Ed. 499; No ble State Bk. v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 104, 31 Sup. Ct. 186, 55 L. Ed. 112, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1062, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 487.
The distinction between an incidental in jury to rights of private property resulting from the exercise of this power, and the taking within the meaning of the constitu tion of private property for public use, is rec ognized in Northern Transp. Co. v. Chicago, 99 U. S. 635, 25 L. Ed. 336 (involving a claim for damages directly resulting from the con struction,by the city of Chicago of a tunnel under the Chicago river, whereby, for a very long time, the plaintiff was prevented from using its docks, and other property for pur poses of business); Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 8 Sup. Ct. 273, 31 L. Ed. 205 (re
lating in part to the lawful prohibition by the state of the use of private property'in a particular way, whereby its ma terially diminished, if not destroyed) ; New York & N. E. R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 14 Sup. Ct. 437, 38 L. Ed. 269 (involving the question whether a railroad company could be required to remove a grade crossing and to establish another at a different place) ; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, .17 Sup. Ct. 581, 41 L. Ed. 979 (whether it was a condition of the exercise by the state of its authority to regulate the use of Private property, that the owner should be indemnified for the injury resulting from.
the exercise of such authority); Gibson T. U. S., 166 U. S. 269, 17 Sup. Ct. 578, 41 L. Ed. 996 (in which the owner of a farm on an island in the Ohio river, at which there was a landing, sought to recover compensation for injury done to it by the construction by the United States of a dyke for the purpose of concentrating the flow in the main chan nel of the river) ; Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U. S. 141, 21 Sup. Ct. 48, 45 L. Ed. 126 (in volving the question whether the United States was required to compensate an owner of land fronting on a navigable river when his access to the shore was permanently ob structed by a pier erected for the purpose of improving navigation) ; Mills v. U. S., 46 Fed. 738, 12 L. R. A. 673 (where an improvement by the United States of the Savannah river resulted in so raising the water in that river as to flood the adjacent rice fields, that were ordinarily and naturally drained in the riv er, and rendering it necessary that expense be incurred to provide new drainage from those fields into a back river). These cases are all cited in the opinion in New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Commis sion, 200 U. S. 361, 26 Sup. Ct. 272, 50 L. Ed. 515.
The rights insured to private corporations by their charters and the manner of their exercises are subject to such new regulations as from time to time may be made by the state; Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas, 212 U. S. 322, 29 Sup. Ct. 370, 53 L. Ed. 530, 15 Ann. Cas. 645; but these regulations must not conflict with the charter, nor take from the corporation any of its essential rights and privileges ; Cooley, Const. Lira. 718 ; Sloan v. R. R., 61 Mo. 24, 21 Am. Rep. 397; Attorney General v. R. Co., 35 Wis. 425; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Kentucky, 161 U. S. 695, 16 Sup. Ct. 714, 40 L. Ed. 849.