The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1902-10-16
FEDERAL OWNERSHIP.

/
discussing federal ownership Of the coal
mines says: THE demand for federal
ownership and operation of the anthra'
cite coal mines Is finding voice in many
quarters quite ~ conservative AZ the
anti Bryan Democratic convention OF
New York state to say nothing OF such
mass meetings az that held in Cleveland
Saturday night or those which have
met in Boston and Chicago. Nor are
there wanting lawyers to maintain the
authority of the national government to
do this thing, regardless Of the wishes
whose jurisdiction the mines are locat-
ed A Detroit attorney, +. A. Baker,
who is said to be of standing rs a consti-
tutional lawyer, has forwarded to the
president the draft Of u bill for enact
ment by congress, providing that the
president may, whenever in his Jndg-
ment public necessity requires it, ac-
quire, by purchase or condemnation the
title and ownership of any coal mines
in the United States, to be operated for
the public benefit and the coal to be
sold Mt cost Of production, including III
terest and sinking fund on per cent
bonds issued to acquire the mines. MIR.
Baker rests his measure on the decision
| . hn Trt,tta1 Qtafna pnnrt m
Chappell against the United States,
where the court says
IL ia now well settled that whenever,
in the execution Of the powers of the
United States granted by the constitu-
ton lands in any state are needed for
fort, magazine, dock yards lighthouse,
custom. house, post Office or any other
public service, and cannot be acquired
by agreement with the owners, congress,
exercising the right Of eminent domain
and making just compensation to own
ers, may authorize such lands to be TAX
en-, either by proceedings IN courts OF
the state with its consent or by pro-
ceedings in the court of the United
States IN congress may direct or permit.
Here we have for the first time some
attempt to bring forward legal prece-
dents Or constitutional warrant for such
action on the part of the national gov
eminent. The above case was decided
about II years ago, the late Justice Gray
giving the opinion Of the court. 1t con-
cerned the taking of land liz Maryland
| fgr hDhthauaa. md Ia, nnntaStinD tha
right of the United States to act
through its own courts and without the
consent Of the state of Maryland the
owner of the land set up the argument
that all powers Of the national govern
ment originated in the states that such
IA were not delegated by the states were
reserved to them; that among the rights
reserved was that Of eminent domain,
which could not be exercised by the
| United States government within
state. except by consent of the state, IN
provided in section of the federal CON
stitu ion. And in answer to this came
the opinion of the court quoted above,
namely, that congress may authorize
lands to be taken in any state, for any
public service, either by proceedings in
courts of the state with its consent or
by proceedings in the United States
courts without such consent
In n word, that provision Of the cons
titution which authorizes congress 10
acquire lands for public buildings forts,
etc, within state. by the consent of
the legislature of the state has come
TO be construed 80 broadly as to do
away with the consent OF the state ~
an Indispensable condition Of acquiring
land for national purposes. Thus the
Supreme court, IN Kohl against the
United States, decided in 1875 declared
that the right OF eminent domain
existsin the government Of the United
States and may be exercised by il with
in the states 80 far as Is necessary 10 tn,
enjoyment Of the powers conferred upoI
IL 10y the constitution and it il no
within the power OF state or an in
dividua) 10 stand in the way.
1T Is thus established that the nation
al government may condemn lands with
in state, regardless of the consent o
state or owner. when such lands ar
! wanted for forts. arsenals, dock yards
, lighthouses, post Offices, or any othe