Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1138434
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:44:22+00:00

Document:
52 reasonably adapted to use for combined navigation, flood con- trol, power, and national defense, the United States District Court concluded that the TVA program represented a proper exercise of the commerce and war powers, and that the electric energy capable of generation at the dams could properly be sold in competition with energy offered for sale by private utilities. Without passing on the merits, the Supreme Court held that the constitutionality of a federal statute may be challenged only in a suit seeking to protect a legal right; that the plaintiff utilities had no legal right to be free from competition resulting from activities of the Federal Government; and that business in- juries resulting from such competition could not provide a basis for challenging the constitutionality of the TVA Act.214 In another case, suit was brought against TVA to recover damages for alleged negligence in operation of its dams during a period of flood.215 A United States District Court concluded that Congress did not intend that TVA be "liable in damages in connection with its handling and manipulating of the waters placed in its control. Any other idea would be quite contrary to public policy."216 Use of Government Property Free From Interference.- The United States may not be subjected to legal proceedings at law or in equity without its consent.217 This immunity "extends to suits of every class."218 Consent to be sued must be given by act of Congress.219 But such a consent must be strictly interpreted, "since it is a relinquishment of a sovereign immunity." 220 "Where jurisdiction has not been conferred by *" Tennessee Electrio Power Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 306 U. S. 118 (1939). 215 Grant v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 49 F. Supp. 564 (D. C. Tenn. 1942). See also Atchley v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 69 F. Supp. 952 (D. C. Ala. 1947). 216 49 F. Supp. at 566. ™ The Siren, 7 Wall. 152,154 (U. S. 1868). ™Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 245 U. S. 493, 505 (1918). ™Belknap v. Bchild, 161 U. S. 10, 16-17 (1896) ; Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U. S. 255, 269-270. 220 United States v. Sherwood, 312 U. S. 584, 590 (1914) ; III. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 245 U. S. 493, 504 (1918).

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