HEALTH DEPARTMENT V. RECTOR, 145 N.Y. 32, 39 N.E. 833
Decided February 26, 1895
In the same year that the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. E.C. Knight Co., the New York State Court of Appeals considered a case involving state government's power to regulate property owners in New York.
In Rector, Trinity Church owned four buildings on Charlton Street in New York City. New York State law required that in the City of New York "every...house...shall have Croton or other water furnished in sufficient quantity at one or more places on each floor, occupied or intended to be occupied by one or more families; and all tenement houses shall be furnished with a like supply of water by the owners thereof whenever they shall be directed so to do by the board of health." The City Health Department notified Trinity Church that it must provide a supply of water to several floors in its buildings occupied by families. Trinity refused believing that the requirement was not a valid exercise of the state's police power. The city Health Department sued Trinity for violating the law.
The New York State Court of Appeals ruled for the Health Department in a 5-2 decision. The court recognized the authority of the state legislature to exercise its police power to promote public health and safety. The decision asserted a well-settled principle of property law: "We may own property absolutely and yet it is subject to the proper exercise of police power. We have surrendered to that extent our right to its unrestricted use. It must be so used as not improperly to cause harm to our neighbor, including in that description the public generally." The state can make laws to protect the public even if they cost property owners money or in other ways disturb or diminish the property owners' enjoyment of their property. No compensation is due for such cost or disturbance. The critical question is whether the law is reasonable.
The purpose of the state law requiring water to dwellings was to protect public health. Access to water in one's dwelling was not a mere convenience -- it promoted cleanliness, prevented disease and protected people and property from fire. In a sentence that reflects the times, the court reasoned, "the tendencies to immorality and crime where there is very close packing of human beings of the lower order in intelligence and morals...arouse the attention of the legislator...that such laws are enacted as shall directly tend to the improvement of the health, safety and morals of those men and women that are to be found at such houses." The court decided that free use of water directly and immediately sustained health and prevents disease.
The burden on the Trinity Church as owner was not too great, according to the court. The law did not take the property from Trinity for public use, but merely regulated it. Any cost or injury to the owner was compensated for not with money by "sharing in the general benefits which the regulations are intended and calculated to secure." The court determined that while this cost the property owner Trinity a great deal of money, it applied equally to all property owners like Trinity Church and was not an "unreasonable exaction."
Trinity Church claimed further that the enforcement of the regulation deprived them of due process of law since there was no notice or hearing before the Health Department ordered them to supply the water at great cost to Trinity. The Court disagreed stating that each time authorities enforce the law they do not need to provide a hearing. That would give each citizen the right to be heard every time authorities attempted to enforce any law. Due process protections, including the right to a hearing, would be provided once a violation of the law occurs and the authorities sue for enforcement, as in the court proceeding at hand.
The two dissenters believed that the state law should be invalidated. They agreed that water was essential to public health and that it was a legitimate exercise of the police power to require it. However, the problem was leaving to the discretion of the Health Department the number and location of faucets on each floor. This delegation of authority without limitations on what can be required of property owners was a direct and unreasonable interference with the rights of property owners.
Learning Activities
Terms to Know
· due process
· police power
Compare and Contrast
The state court upheld the state law at issue in Rector. What if the Congress passed a similar law for the nation? What would the court decide applying the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. E.C. Knight (156 U.S. 1 (1895))?
Careful Reading and Analysis
The dissenting opinion by Justice Bartlett in Rector stated: "A sound public policy certainly dictates that at this time, when the rights of property and the liberty of the citizen are sought to be invaded by every form of subtle and dangerous legislation, the courts should see to it that those benign principles of the common law which are the shield of personal liberty and private property suffer no impairment."
· Explain what Justice Bartlett means by this sentence.
· Is his thesis relevant today? Support your answer with examples.