Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-04-15

nent domain and must yield to ire
proper exercise. The investiture Of the
franchise is not absolute. .
There is no distinction between cor
| poreaI and incorporeal property. ana =
/ franchise is as subject to the power Of
eminent domain as any other nron-
crty."
10 the same effect IS Lewis On Emil
neut Domain, see 135. where it said.
The property in connection with
which the franchise is made avail
able. ana the franchise ITSELF are IL
course, subject to the power of eminent
domain like all other property"
In State Y. Noyes, II Me-, 1S9, this
court has recognized, at least by jnpli-
cation. the principles above laid down
The Court says, p. POS, but if the legis-
Iature in granting the charter TO the
| former corporation, restrained itself
from comforting . similar privilege
upon another corporation of the same
Kind within a specified distance. the
restriction would be binding, and could
not be revoked, excepting under the
high prerosative q sovereignty, ana
by making just compensation"
The Supreme Court Of the United
States i'll Long island Water SUNNY
Company II. Brooklyn, 1866 U. s. 6S5
hold that q water supply system be-
longing II 4 corporation may be ac-
4uiled hy the public in the exercise Of
the power of eminent domain, on nav
ment of just compensation. The court
says. u. t>9. "All private property is
held subject 10 the demands OF a pub
lie use. The constitutional guarantee
Of just compensation is not a limita-
ton of the power to take, but ONLY 4
condition of its exercise. Whenever
public Uees require, the government
may appropriate any private property
on the payment Of just compensation.
That the supply DC water to a CITY IL
= public purpose cannot be doubted,
ana hence The condemnation OF water
supply system must DE recognized as
wituiu thc unaucsti1ned limits OF the
power HI eminent domain. It matters
not to whom thc water supply system
belongs, individual Or corporation, or
What franchises are connected with it
Ill may he taken for public uses upon
payment Of just compensation"
As further authorities on this cues
ton. We cato, W est liver GrlQge Co, Y.
Dix, s Howard 500: Boston & Lowell r.
T. Y. salem & Lowell Il. r., Gray, /:
Enfield Tell Bridge co. V. Hartford &
New Haven Il. X. Co. i Conn. 15i,
466; White River Turnpike Co, V. Yer
mont Central r. r. Co., q VT. $50:
Brainard y. Missiquoi II. r. Co. IS VT.
101; In re City Of Brooklyn, 143 ~ Y.
5g6; I}ackus y. Lebanon, IL n. H. 10.
Tt is urged BY the defense that while
ono corporation chartered by the State
is exercising its franchise and using
its powers and property to perform its
duties under its charter. another cor
pOratian cannot receive Legislative
authority to take the property ana
franchise Of the original company and
employ them in the same business to
do the same service.
There are authorities which support
this proposition Of the defense but we
think they are not in accord with the
authorities above cited. AS. stated by
Chancellor WalWorth in Beekman "
Saratoga x Schenectady Z. Il. Co, 5
Paige, T3. referring to the power of the
state over all the property within
its limits, THE eminent domain, the
highest ana most exact idea of property