“The right of eminent domain, that is, the right to take private property for public uses, appertains to every independent government. It requires no constitutional recognition: it is an attribute of sovereignty. The clause found in the constitutions of the several states providing for just compensation for property taken is a mere limitation upon the exercise of the right. When the use is public, the necessity or expediency of appropriating any particular property is not a subject of judicial cognizance. The property may be appropriated by an act of the legislature, or the power of appropriating it may be delegated to private corporations, to be exercised by them in the execution of works in which the public is interested.” Parks, boulevards, and places of recreation are now universally recognized as legitimate objects of public concern, for which the power of eminent domain may appropriately be exercised; and it seems clear that if private property can be taken to create such utilities, it may also be taken for the purpose of realizing the full benefit of these works by adequate control of the surroundings. The legislature might at least authorize a city, park district, or other subordinate agency to exercise the power of eminent domain by imposing upon property in the neighborhood of a public place restrictions upon the location or character of the buildings to be erected, or the kinds of business, if any, to be conducted upon such adjacent land. It could not be successfully argued that such a use was not public. The conception of a public use must alter and expand with the development of civilization, and especially with the growth of cities. In sustaining an act of Congress providing for the condemnation of land for a public park in the District of Columbia, and assessing part of the cost upon the property specially benefited, the Supreme Court, in the case of _Shoemaker_ v. _United States_, 147 U. S. 282, 297, speaking through Mr. Justice Shiras, said: