219 U. S. Argument for Plaintiff in Error. sota, 356; Deal v. Mississippi Co., 107 Missouri, 469; State v. Switzler, 143 Missouri, 314; Manning v. Kippel, 9 Oregon, 370; Feldman v. City Council, 23 S. Car. 63; Maudlin v. City Council, 53 S. Car. 293; Williams v. Davidson, 43 Texas, 37; Brooke Academy v. George, 14 W. Va. 420; Pittsburgh &c. R. R. Co. v. Iron Works, 31 W. Va. 734; Keeley Institute v. Milwaukee County, 95 Wisconsin, 161; State v. Sargent, 12 Mo. App. 228. See also 2 Kent, 329; I. & N. R. R. Co. v. Baldwin, 5 So. Rep. 311; Sadlin v. Langham, 34 Alabama, 311, 330; Billings v. Hall, 7 California, 1, 10; Enfield T. B. Co. v. Hartford R. R. Co., 42 Am. Dec. 716, 727; Great Western Gas Co. v. Hawkins, 30 Ind. App. 566; Blockman v. Holms, 72 Indiana, 515; Banshead v. Brown, 25 Iowa, 540; Harding v. Funk, 8 Kansas, 315, 323; Bank of Louisville v. Board of Trustees, 5 S. W. Rep. 735, 737; Allen v. Inhabitants of Jay, 11 Am. Rep. 185; Regents v. Williams, 31 Am. Dec. 72, 97; Lowell v. Boston, 15 Am. Rep. 39, 56; Michigan Sugar Co. v. Auditor General, 83 Am. St. Rep. 354, 357; Coates v. Campbell, 35 N. W. Rep. 366; State v. Washington Co., 15 N. W. Rep. 375, 379; Moody v. Hoskins, 1 So. Rep. 622; Newby v. Platte County, 25 Missouri, 258, 261; Dickey v. Tennison, 27 Missouri, 373; A. & N. R. R. Co. v. Baty, 29 Am. Rep. 356, 362; Ten Eyck v. D. & R. Canal Co., 37 Am. Dec. 233; Coster v. Water Co., 18 N. J. Eq. 54, 63; Taylor v. Porter, 40 Am. Dec. 274; Bloodgood v. Mohawk & H. Ry. Co., 31 Am. Dec. 313, 316; Embury v. Conner, 3 N. Y. 515; Reeves v. The Treasurer, 8 Ohio St. 333, 347; Lamb & McKee v. Lane, 4 Ohio St. 167, 178; Lucas County v. Bayles, 78 N. E. Rep. 955; Witham v. Osburn, 4 Oregon, 218; Sharpless v. Mayor of Phila., 21 Pa. St. 147, 169; Feldman v. Charleston, 55 Am. Rep. 6, 9; Harding v. Goodlet, 11 Tennessee, 43; Clack v. White, 32 Tennessee, 540, 549; Delworth v. State, 36 S. W. Rep. 274, State v. Froehlich, 99 Am. St. Rep. 985; United States v. DouglasWilliam Sartoris Co., 22 Pac. Rep. 92, 96. Opinion of the Court. 219 U.S. MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court. Leave to file an application for rehearing is asked in this case. We see no reason to grant it, but, as the judgment delivered, ante, p. 104, seems to have conveyed a wrong impression of the opinion of the court in some details, we add a few words to what was said when the case was decided. We fully understand the practical importance of the question and the very powerful argument that can be made against the wisdom of the legislation, but on that point we have nothing to say, as it is not our concern. Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361, Strickley v. Highland Boy Mining Co., 200 U. S. 527, etc., were cited to establish, not that property might be taken for a private use, but that among the public uses for which it might be taken were some which, if looked at only in their immediate aspect, according to the proximate effect of the taking, might seem to be private. This case, in our opinion, is of that sort. The analysis of the police power, whether correct or not, was intended to indicate an interpretation of what has taken place in the past not to give a new or wider scope to the power. The propositions with regard to it, however, in any form, are rather in the nature of preliminaries. For in this case there is no out and out unconditional taking at all. The payment can be avoided by going out of the banking business, and is required only as a condition for keeping on, from corporations created by the State. We have given what we deem sufficient reasons for holding that such a condition may be imposed. Leave to file petition denied. BUCK'S STOVE & RANGE COMPANY v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR v. BUCK'S STOVE & RANGE COMPANY. APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Nos. 190, 394. Argument commenced January 27, 1911. The court declined to hear further argument. Appeals dismissed without costs to either party, it having developed from statements of counsel for both parties that the cases had become purely moot because of the settlement between the parties of every material controversy which the record presented. THE facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. Daniel Davenport and Mr. J. J. Darlington for The Buck's Stove & Range Company. Mr. Jackson H. Ralston, Mr. F. L. Siddons and Mr. William E. Richardson for The American Federation of Labor et al. Per Curiam: When these cases were reached for hearing and after the argument had materially progressed, it developed from statements made by counsel for both parties that the cases had become purely moot because of the settlement between the parties of every material controversy which the record presented. On the disclosure of this situation further argument was dispensed with; and for the reason which led to that action, that is, as we have said, that the controversies between the parties had become in all respects moot, the appeals must be dismissed. Richardson v. McChesney, 218 U. S. 487, 492, and cases cited. Appeals dismissed, without costs to either party. Opinions Per Curiam, Etc. 219 U. S. OPINIONS PER CURIAM, ETC., FROM DECEMBER 19, 1910, TO FEBRUARY 20, 1911. No. 586. THE STATE OF MINNESOTA EX REL. JALMER M. LARSEN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. HUGH R. SCOTT, AS AUDITOR OF THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. Motion to dismiss submitted December 12, 1910. Decided December 19, 1910. Per Curiam. Dismissed with costs. Mr. Milton D. Purdy, for defendant in error, in support of the motion. Mr. Carl Strover, for plaintiff in error, in opposition thereto. No. 497. SAMUEL LOEB, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. HENRY JENNINGS, CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted December 19, 1910. Decided January 3, 1911. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed on the authority of Waters-Pierce Oil Company v. State of Texas, 212 U. S. 112, 118; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 79; Griffith v. Connecticut, 218 U. S. 563. Mr. Thomas B. Felder for plaintiff in error. Mr. William A. Wimbish for defendant in error. No. 192. G. WASH HUNTER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted January 9, 1911. Decided January 16, 1911. Per Curiam. Writ of error dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 100; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. State of Texas, 212 U. S. 112; 219 U. S. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. King v. West Virginia, 216 U. S. 92; Griffith v. Connecticut, 218 U. S. 563. Mr. John G. Capers, Mr. Joseph D. Wright, Mr. Coleman L. Blease and Mr. William R. Andrews for plaintiff in error. Mr. J. Fraser Lyon for defendant in error. No. 216. CLARENCE H. VENNER ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, V. THE DENVER UNION WATER COMPANY ET AL. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted January 30, 1911. Decided February 20, 1911. Per Curiam. Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 100; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. State of Texas, 212 U. S. 112; King v. West Virginia, 216 U. S. 92; Griffith v. Connecticut, 218 U. S. 563. Mr. Elijah N. Zoline and Mr. Caldwell Yeaman for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Arthur H. Van Brunt, Mr. Gerald Hughes, Mr. Frederick D. Van Vorst and Mr. Joel F. Vaile for defendants in error. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari from December 19, 1910, to February 20, 1911. No. 477. GEORGE GODFREY MOORE ET AL., ETC., PETITIONERS, V. SECURITY TRUST & LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY. December 19, 1910. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Mr. Robert Stone, Mr. D. R. Hite and Mr. James A. Troutman for petitioners. Mr. Joseph B. Wright and Mr. John G. Capers for respondent. No. 805. PABST BREWING COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. CHARLES THORLEY. December 19, 1910. Petition for a |