Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1138404
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 06:40:47+00:00

Document:
22 tion.71 Having already suggested the constitutional soundness of that system,72 the Court in the New River decision in 1940 specifically upheld its constitutionality and the validity of li- censes issued thereunder.73 Moreover, a private company op- erating a power development in a navigable water of the United States, constructed prior to passage by Congress of the licens- ing statute, may be lawfully required thereunder to accept a license with all of its obligations and conditions.74 Nor is such a company's position different where it claims a preexisting right under state law to use of water for power purposes.75 Denying that commerce authority is limited to navigation control, the Supreme Court in the New River case observed that the license conditions have a relationship to exercise of commerce power, that the privilege of obstructing navigable waters may be denied or granted on terms, and that it is not material that the exertion of commerce authority is attended by the same incidents which attend the exercise of state police power, saying:76 In truth the authority of the United States is the regula- tion of commerce on its waters. * * * That au- thority is as broad as the needs of commerce. * * * 71 Act of June 10,1920, 41 Stat. 1063, Act of August 26, 1985, 49 Stat. 838, as amended, 16 TJ. S. C. 791a-825r. 72 New Jersey v. Bar gent, 269 XL S. 328 (1926). n United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 311 U. S. 377 (1940), reh. den., 312 U. S. 712 (1941). 74 Pennsylvania Water & Power Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 123 F. 2d 155 (O. A. D. C. 1941), cert, den., 315 U. S. 806 (1942). ™ Niagara Falls Power Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 137 F. 2d 787 (C. A. 2, 1943), cert, den., reh. den., 320 U. S. 792, 815 (1943). 78 United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 311 U. S. 377, 426-427 (1940), reh. den., 312 U. S. 712 (1941). In contending that the rights of the United States to use of waters is limited to navigation, the company relied upon certain language used in: Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 85-86 (1907); Port of Seattle v. Oregon & Washington R. R. Co., 255 U. S. 56, 63 (1921) ; United States v. River Rouge Co., 269 U. S. 411, 419 (1926) ; Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U. S. 367, 415 (1929). But the Court expressly denied that the language employed in those opinions supports the view that constitutional power of the United States over its waters is limited to navi- gation control, asserting that on the contrary its authority is as broad as the needs of commerce. 311 U. S. at 424-426.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.