Minn. Canal & Power Co. v. Pratt

• Decision Date: 07 June 1907
• Citation: 101 Minn. 197,112 N.W. 395
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: MINNESOTA CANAL & POWER CO. v. PRATT et al.

101 Minn. 197

112 N.W. 395

MINNESOTA CANAL & POWER CO.

v.PRATT et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 7, 1907.

Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; William A. Cant, Judge.

Condemnation proceedings by the Minnesota Canal & Power Company against Isaiah Pratt and others. From a judgment for defendants, petitioner appeals. Affirmed.

Start, C. J., and Lewis, J., dissenting.

Syllabus by the Court

Rev. Laws 1905, § 2841, authorizes certain corporations to condemn such private property as may be necessary or convenient for the transaction of the public business for which they may be formed under such statute. Held, that the term ‘public business,’ as so used, includes the construction of works for supplying the public with water, light, heat, and power.

Rev. Laws 1905, §§ 2841, 2842, 2926, 2927, conferring the power of eminent domain on public service corporations for specified purposes, authorizes the exercise of such power in aid of the construction of canals and reservoirs to be used to create and distribute electric power for general public use.

A public service corporation, although authorized to condemn private property for the construction of canals and reservoirs for the generation of electric power, may not exercise such power when the particular enterprise contemplates an interference with the navigable capacity or navigation of any of the navigable waters of the state, unless such interference is expressly authorized by statute.

Public service corporations, organized and existing under the authority of the state, authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain, thereby become subject to governmental regulation and control.

Where a public service corporation was organized to furnish water, light, heat, and power for public use, and, being authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain, became subject to state regulation and control, the actual exercise of the state's power to regulate and control such corporation did not constitute a condition precedent to the use of its power of eminent domain; the state being authorized to pass such regulatory measures as the future business of the corporation might require.

Where a public service corporation was authorized to furnish water, light, heat, and power for public and private use, it was not necessary that it should have first obtained a franchise from a municipality or a contract to furnish a city or village with its products before it was entitled to exercise its power of eminent domain, conferred by Rev. Laws 1905, §§ 2841, 2842.

In the absence of the exercise of power conferred by the federal government over navigable streams within the states, incident to its power to regulate commerce, the states have full power over such waters within their jurisdiction.

Navigable waters entirely within the limits of a state are subject to the same control by the federal government as those extending through or reaching beyond the limits of the state.

In a proceeding to condemn land in aid of an enterprise which requires the construction of dams, reservoirs, and canals for the purpose of creating a water power with which to generate electric power for public use, the petition for the appointment of commissioners alleged facts which, if true, justify the conclusion that the works, when completed, would not materially interfere with the navigation of the waters to be affected thereby. Motions by various landowners to dismiss the petition were treated by the trial court as demurrers. Held that, assuming the allegations of the petition to be true, the contemplated use of the public navigable waters is not forbidden by the laws of the state.

Act Cong. March 3, 1899, c. 425, §§ 9, 10, 30 Stat. 1151 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 3540, 3541; 6 Fed. St. Ann. p. 805], requiring the consent of the Secretary of War on the approval of the chief of engineers to the construction of public works in any navigable waterway within the United States, does not transfer exclusive control over navigable waters entirely within the limits of a state to the federal authorities; but the right of private persons to erect structures in such waters is dependent upon the concurrent or joint consent of both the state and federal governments.

Under such act a public service corporation should not be permitted to exercise the power of eminent domain in furtherance of an enterprise involving an interference with navigable waters within the state without having first procured the approval of its plan by the officers of the federal government.

The use and control of waters lying within the geographical boundaries of the United States is not restrained by international comity.

A treaty entered into by the United States in accordance with constitutional requirements, which is operative by its own force, constitutes a municipal law, binding upon the federal and state courts, as well as an international contract.

A substantial diversion of the waters forming a part of the international boundary between the United States and Canada would constitute a violation of Webster-Ashburton Treaty 1842, art. 2 (7 Fed. St. Ann. p. 582), declaring that all water communication from Lake Superior to Lake of the Woods, etc., shall be free and open to citizens of both countries. Act Cong. March 3, 1899, c. 425, reserves to the United States control over navigable waters within the states, subject to the conditions expressed in the statute. The act does not affect or in any respect modify the treaty. It merely authorizes the Secretary of War to determine whether any contemplated enterprise will divert the waters or otherwise improperly affect navigation. If Congress in the manner provided by this act approves an enterprise, the question of the violation of the treaty thereby is no longer for the consideration of the courts, as a subsequent act of Congress, if inconsistent with the terms of an existing treaty, abrogates the treaty. So far as the courts or citizens of this county are concerned. O. H. Simonds and C. O. Baldwin (W. L. Penfield, of counsel), for appellant.

H. J. Grannis, J. N. Searles, Jaques & Hudson, and Wilson S. Crosby, for respondents.

ELLIOTT, J.

In this proceeding the Minnesota Canal & Power Company seeks to condemn certain lands necessary for the construction of works designed and intended for the generation of electric power for distribution to the public for the purposes of light, heat, and power. The respondents moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The motions were treated as in the nature of demurrers, and for the purposes of the hearing the allegations of the petition must be treated as true. The trial court granted the motions to dismiss, and the petitioner appealed from a judgment entered on the order of dismissal.

In the recent case of Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co., 97 Minn. 429, 107 N. W. 405, this petitioner was denied the right to exercise the power of eminent domain in aid of the construction of its proposed works, because the purposes stated in the petition in that action were in part private, and upon the further ground that the statutes of this state as they then stood did not authorize the construction of the canal and the diversion of the waters as proposed. The present proceeding is for the condemnation of other lands belonging to private persons in aid of the same enterprise which was somewhat fully described in the opinion in the Koochiching Case. Since that action was determined the petitioner has amended its charter, and now contends that the objections which proved fatal in that case have been eliminated, because it now seeks to divert only so much water as may be diverted without injury to any present or possible future public use thereof, and to use the land which it proposes to take for a public use only. It is also claimed that certain statutes which were considered in the Koochiching Case were repealed by Rev. Laws 1905, and new statutes were enacted which grant larger powers with reference to the diversion of waters.

According to this petition the work of internal improvement which the petitioner now proposes to undertake involves ‘the construction and maintenance of a continuous navigable water course from and within the territory hereinafter described and designated as the ‘Birch Lake Drainage Basin,’ in St. Louis and Lake counties, Minnesota, to a point * * * in West Duluth, which shall include the construction and maintenance of a navigable canal connecting said Birch Lake drainage basin with the Embarrass river, then along said Embarrass river to a point in the northerly end of Sabin Lake, * * * and the improvement of the Embarrass river and the lakes along the course thereof, and the St. Louis river below the outlet of the Embarrass river, down to [a designated point] in St. Louis county, Minnesota, the construction and maintenance of a navigable canal from said last-mentioned point on the St. Louis river easterly to said point in the city of Duluth, * * * and the construction and maintenance in connection therewith of a suitable device or chute for delivering logs, lumber, timber, and forest and other products from the east end of said canal at the point last described to and into the said Bay of St. Louis, which canal shall be of such size, dimensions, and capacity as to allow the floating of canal boats and barges and other water craft thereon for the transportation of merchandise, and to allow the floating of logs, lumber, timber and forest products thereon, which watercourse shall be capable of delivering the logs, lumber, timber, forest, and other products from said Birch Lake drainage basin and from said St. Louis river and its tributaries to and into the bay of St. Louis at the said city of Duluth and the water tributary to the St. Louis River Canal hereinafter described.'

This work involves and will require ‘the diversion into said...