The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1913-06-23

court for the western district of AIichi-
gan: United States versus Chandler 4
Dunbar Water Power company ct al.
Chandler-Dunba Water Power COM
pany versus United States, 81. Mary's
Power company versus United States
and Clarence NJ Brown, receiver, etc,
versus United States
The essential facts are these:
History of the Case.
On March 3, 1909. congress passed
law authorizing the secretary &c war
to take steps to acquire iii property
north OF tie St. Nary's falls ship "a
nal to the international boundary, ON
the ground that IFS acquisition was
''neceSsary for rho purposes of uavisa-
ton of SAID waters and the waters
connected Herewith" The law further
authorized the government TO take pos
session of the land prior to determine
ton by the courts as to the necessity
therefor or Of the compensation to be
paid All permits previously issued by
! the secretary Of war. under authority
F Of congress. for the construction of
water power plants on the land in ques-
ton, We're declared to be null and void
after Jan. /. 1911. but a discretion was
vested in the secretary to permit the
f Chandler-Dunbar and Edison Sault
Electric companies TO maintain their
present works and utilize the water
power in said river at said rapids. in
so far as the same does not interfere
with navigation or retard the construc-
ton Of government works"
Acting under this law. the secretary
Of war brought suit against the Chan
dler-Dunbar Water Power company,
the st. Mary's Power company, the
Edison-Sault Electric company and the
Michigan-Lake Superior Power com
pany. The lower court awarded dam
ages as follows: Chandler Dunbar
company. $3.50. 332. of which $3.50. COO
was the estimated value of the water
power; st. Marys Falls Power com
pany, sd 900; Edison-Sault Electric
company. 100000. settled by stipula-
ton, and to the Michigan-Lake Supe-
rior Power company, nothing.
Both Sides Challenged Award.
The government challenged the
award Of anything whatever on ac-
count of any water power right claim
ed by any of the owners of the con
demned upland and also attacked the
principles applied by the lower court
in fixing n valuation upon the upland
taken. On the other hand. each OF the
plaintiffs In error challenged the
awards as inadequate.
The decision of the supreme court
4nf no saFF F.n
ment so far as they related to water
power for factory purposes, but holds
that this land had "a prospective
: value" for the purpose of constructing
a canal and lock parallel with those in
use, which. it says, had passed be
yond the region of the purely conjec,
tural or speculative"
: In the case Of the st. Mary's com
, pany the supreme court also holds
: that, while the company owned an IS
: land of admittedly strategic impor
lance" to the proposed future works o
the government, that value was purel,
speculative" such as could be deter
mined only "by a price fixed by tn
5 necessities of one person buying iron
/ another, free to sell. or refuse, as tn
! price suited" The court concluded thi
G point by saying. But in a condemna
2 ton proceeding the value of the prop
! erty to the government for its particu
Z lar use IS not a criterion" and held tina
T the owners were entitled TO compensa
n ton only for the actual marketabl
I value of the land
/ The decision reverses that Of tn
r court below