Reports of the Inspectors of Mines of the anthracite and bituminous ...

No. 12.J FouKTH Anthracite Distkict. 99
taken from him for any private use whatever, without his consent, nor
can it be taken for any public use witiiout compensation ; still he
owns and holds it "subject to those g-eneral reg-ulations which
are necessary to the common g-ood and g-eneral welfare. Rig-hts
of property like all other social and conventional rig-hts are subject to
such reasonable limitations in their enjoyment as shall prevent them
from being injurious, and to such reasonable restraints and regulations
established by law as the legislature, under the governing and controlling
power vested in them by the constitution, may think necessary and
expedient." Com. v. Alger, 7 Cush. 84. If he suffers injury, it is either
damnum absque injuria, or, in the theory of the hiAv, he is compensated
for it by sharing in the general benefits which the regulations are in-
tended and calculated to secure. 1 Dill. Mun. Corp., § 141. The estab-
lishment of fire limits within the denser portions of cities and villages
within which, buildings constructed of inflammable materials shall not
be erected or repaired, often interferes with the enjoyment of private
property, imposes an additional burden of expense upon the owner if he
desires to build, and occasions him inconvenience, but such regulations
have been sustained notwithstanding this result. Klinger v. Bichel,
117 Pa. 326; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp., §§ 143-405. We 'might multiply illus-
trations, but it is unnecessary. There are innumerable police regula-
tions which the courts have sustained, notwithstanding they have dis-
turbed the free enjoyment of private property, and have subjected th&
owners thereof to inconvenience, expense and loss. If these considera-
tions should be allowed to stand in the way of the enforcement of the
mine ventilation law, but few precedents would be needed to destroy it.
Fortunately the first law upon the subject received a different construction
at the outset, and notwithstanding it occasioned additional burden
and expense, and notwithstanding some of its provisions may have been
unwise, inadequate and unnecessary, yet we believe it safe to say that,
on the whole, the mine owners themselves have been more than compensated
by the benefits that have accrued from its enforcement. We come
then to the question, is it imperatively necessary to the use and enjoyment
of its property for the defendant company to erect an inflammable
breaker upon the site of the old one, or, at all events, within two hundred
feet of the mouth of shaft number four? We are not convinced by
the affidavits before ns that it is.
First. It is not alleged that the defendant company has not land
enough in the vicinity of these shafts to place the breaker two hundred
feet distant, but only that, owing to the steepness of the grade, tracks for
empty and loaded cars cannot be constructed. Conceding that this is
an insuperable obstacle to the location of the breaker on its own land
which cannot be overcome by grading, or by the construction of inclined
planes, or in any other way, it is not asserted that the company' has
made any effort, and has failed, to obtain sufficient land for the purpose