to the government, i.e., the king. That concept, through escheat statutes and conditions of early grants, persisted in colonial days. The Takings Clause was thus considered to be a liberalization of property rights adverse to the conservative interests of the preconstitutional colonial governments. The right to private property was then perceived to be one of the incidents, privileges and immunities constituting individual rights that should be free from governmental interference. Maryland was one of only three states that had a Takings Clause in its first constitution. Id. at 698, n. 15 (citing 3 F. Thorpe, The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies, N Rock, 237 U.S. 171, 35 S.Ct. 511, 59 L.Ed. 900 (1915) (<HOLDING>); Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394, 36
holding that an ordinance passed for the health and comfort of the community that prohibited brickmaking in a designated area was a valid exercise of police power holding general statutes  1466 a requiring licensing to engage in operating wrecker for purpose of towing valid exercise of police power holding that limiting to two the number of dogs kept per residential unit was not an unreasonable exercise of police power holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation holding that the exercise of police power was valid where an owner was prohibited from operating a liveiy stable business that was not a nuisance per se