The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-10-24
Not Necessarily Unconstitutional.

The Journal cannot say that it is
in sympathy with the New York democ-
racy's program Of naturalization of the
coal mines. though continuation Of in
dustrial anarchy In the mining regions
would eventually bring about a condition
which it might be possible to remedy only
by state ownership. But when Mr.. Hill
asserts that his plan is constitutional he
is not so utterly out of court as the New
York Tribune asserts. The Tribune says:
The United States cannot acquire one foot of
land within that Jurisdiction, for any purpose,
without the consent Of the legislature Of Penn
sylvania.
1t is not true that the United States
cannot take land in Pennsylvania for
mission Of the Legislature Of Pennsyl-
vania. The Tribune bases it's sweeping
assertion on that portion of the consti-
tuition that provides that the federal gov
eminent may exercise authority over all
places purchased by the consent of the
legislature of the state in which the same
shall be for the erection Of forts, maya
zines, arsenals, dockyards and other
needful buildings" The Tribune, how
ever, overlooked the fifth amendment to
the constitution, which says that 'pri-
vate property shall not be taken for pub
lie use without just compensation" This
amendment must be taken as having
precedence over the clause above quoted
from the original constitution and GER
tainly gives the implied power to take
private property after just compensa-
ton.
Nor is this a mere piece Of private In
depreciation Of the constitution, of no
more value on one side Of the argument
than the Tribunes contention is on the
other. In 1875, in the case of the con-
demnation Of land for a postoffice in Gin
cinnati. the supreme court distinctly up
held the possession Of the power Of en-
inent domain by the federal government.
Previous to that time permission had al
ways been secured from state legislatures
to purchase lands required for federal
purposes. But now the federal govern
ment proceeds directly, and, If neces-
sary, condemns through it's own courts.
Aside from the undoubted constitu
tionality of this decision, which was that
Of the whole supreme bench, the necessity
OF such powers in the federal govern
ment is manifest when it is considered
that if the consent Of state legislature
were necessary before national works
could be carried on the federal government
would be powerless to perform some OF
the functions Of government.
The Tribune is too much Influenced by
the old states rights idea that the United
States is merely league, and the feder-
al government merely a sort Of interstate
committee. The true conception IS that OF
Jefferson, viz, that for certain purposes
the people of the United States are one
state, and for other purposes Of several
states. For such a purpose as purchasing
site for a federal building this people
constitute one state and can proceed to
use their power as such to take land with
"just compensation.
All Of this does not prove that condem-
nation Of coal lands for the purpose of op-
Grating coal lines as business would be
constitutional. Heretofore the government
has only acquired land for the purpose OF
performing certain recognized functions OF
government. It is only under that
clause of the constitution which author
| ICES the raising Of taxes, among other
things, for the promotion of the general
welfare that the nationalizat ton Of Goa
| lands could be in any way touched by any
! definition in the federal constitution Of
the functions Of the national government
And, as T h J ournal has said before
| the question would be one for the supreme
court ultimately to decide.