The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1917-07-06

Supreme Court OF Alabama say: IT
rScms IN bc an admitted TACT gen
orally, that the power inheres IN
state for domestic uses only to De
exercised for The benefit OF It's own
people. and cannot be extended mere
iy 10 promote tho public uses or R
foreign state But II was held mat
the right is moi 10 be denied ~Eere
public uses urr Subservcd In me
state granting condemnation. ne
cause in connection herewith pubic
uses in another state may likewise
he promoted. And the rriurirlc was
applied III favor Of a corporation on
gagged in supplying wat-r 10 TWO
cities in Alabama and 10 one Oily IN
Georgia. the court saying: Nnile
state will take care 10 use this power
for the benefit OF it's own people II
will not refuse Ia exercise II FOR Sucn
purpose, because the inhabitants OF
a nrighboring state may inciden-
tally partakc of the cruitS OF It's eS-
ercIsr.' columbus Watcrworks Co
V. Long. III Ala, 245. IS So; .o!.l
I'm the Idaho case or washington
Water Power co. V. Waters. 10 Idaho
6a5. SOS, iI5 rae. 6S2. $50, above
cited. the same doctrine was stated.
and while the fact that another slate
might be incidentally benefited was
not doomed sufficient to deny con-
demnation for an improvement wnich
would be a public use In ldaho' IL
was said: Condemnation could cyl
IDENTIFY not be had In this state for
the purpose alone Of serving pup
lie use In another state. tll5 lac
6So, SIS. See also Wulbrldgc vs.
NobiuSon. - Idaho 235 rs Pac. Sl2'
a. l.. H. y. (N. S. 24e..
1t is said in Nichols on the rover
of Eminent Domain: 1t has been IN
timated that one state cannon con-
cdmn property within its limits
TOR the use OF another state (cltlng
Kohl V. l.. s.. Supra). and d taxing
for such purpose has never re-
ccivcI the sanction OF the court.
at is also we'll settled that Il
state cannot take ur authorize Inc
taking oil property or rights IN prop
crty situated in another state.
tNichols on Elm. Dom. Sec. ~:
Lewis on I'm. DOM. Bird Ed. SEC:
3Sj: 10 Am. a. En- Tue; Of Law t2na
cd.l 1861: Crosby Y. Hanover 80 y.
"A. 4o4: L. :. Y. Amez. Woodb. s.
NJ. ~, "A Fed. tas. No. Il, AL: lit
nois State rus, 60. Y. ST. Louis, etc.
K. Co.. EOS III. 4l9. 20 y. l.. $50
one stale cannot cAproprlate t"r us
public purposes property within the
territory uf HnnthGr state. (MC-
Garter V. Hudson County Water Co.
10 NJ. j. l:q 6Hj. G5 All 4SS. IA l..
K. a. (N. 81 1g7, @01. is Am. 81.
Rep. "a. "a. ~ Ann. Cas-. llG. l2H.)
The question has arisen whether.
by virtue Of the right nt eminent
domain. ono stat" can take. or sub
icct to public use. land IN another
state. and he IL ciSiunS have nalur-
ally hren against such II power.
tHolypkc Water Power 60. '. Con-
nsciirnl River TO, - Conn. H1O. 30
20 Fed. Il. 49,
t4 Therefore. it Is concluded. II
Rch instance. that one engaged III "
BUSINESS must supply or furnish IT, M
ltlxcns Of the stHte. living. or d"inl
BUSINESS III the runmunliI les served L.
n such business, under reasonable AM
roper regulations. ar fair anu reason
BIZ. I.ri,r therefor. in adequate quaint
les. within ia" limits IF the supply. tn
at the business. anu Shch J.
the duty "f Ihe one IN IN
,u:.li,,.,, --ih, undertaking win ah
blIh.iIra :" the public
Homo People Must be Served Ado
uuately.
~ That Ia require n"rloTn"th" :"
tIrh duty does not n""r$shriIE urnE III
mlr Ji The commodity I" persons nu'
ior -! tho SIuir nor tho transportation
hereof to point. outside the state II
OF the federal r"nHti'n
ion. THO one engaged Iii the DuSlhhs!
Nay suIrIly or furnish the Gulnn"dilN
@ citizens If both SialcS. or transIor
he rumnndily - points outside 81 III
tate, provided the undertaking 10 lur
ish the commodity 10 the citizens o
IL. state. living or Going business IN IN
served by such business, u
dcuuni" quantities within the limits
he supply. is kept and performed Win
, Tho SinIc from which the pow cr Is dc
Iyrd II the one IN tn" business may
ariially keep and perform IN" uhd''
akine and deny the citizens OF inc fta''
part ur thar To which they are rnt!tlcn
INV may not such on" entirely deny f'
UGH citizens that IN which they are en-
illcd" Or should Tho demand Tor TN
umnodity nj the point Of delivery GU
f the state be equal 10 or greater thar
he limit Of the supply. and The price
outside Of the state more attractive
han the price Within the state. then car
ne In tn. business deliver the entire
uDrly outside The slate and deny al
ury 10 the public Of the state: II th'
ne In the business has the right 10 dC
he first. why has he not the right II
q the latter" One IN the business ma:
OIL legal right TO do either. for 10 do os