United States v. Rauers

• Decision Date: 14 November 1895
• Citation: 70 F. 748
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. RAUERS.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

70 F. 748

UNITED STATES v. RAUERS.

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Eastern Division.

November 14, 1895

William T. Gary, U.S. Atty.

W. W Gordon, Jr., and Denmark, Adams & Freeman, for respondent.

SPEER District Judge.

This is a question of much interest. On the one hand, we have what are unquestionably the beneficent purposes of the government to establish a light station, to advance the interest of navigation. On the other hand, we have to consider the right of the private citizen to the dominion of his land, which is very valuable intrinsically, and particularly valuable to the owner because of the facts set up in the answer.

A fundamental principle of law controlling all matters of this character is that every statute which undertakes to appropriate in any manner the property of private persons for public use, must be strictly construed. One of the great aims of government is to secure to each citizen the enjoyment of his estate. On the other hand, in cases of public necessity the right of the individual must yield to the right and demand of the public; but, since that demand is in derogation of private right, it must be closely scrutinized, and the expression of legislative purpose in which it is conveyed must be strictly construed.

'So high a prerogative as that of divesting one's estate against his will should only be exercised where the plain letter of the law permits it, and under a careful observance of the formalities prescribed for the owner's protection ' Cooley, Const. Lim. p. 651.

The same eminent authority also declares:

'Express legislative power, moreover, is needed for these purposes. It will not follow that, because such things are convenient to the accomplishment of the general object, the public may appropriate them without express authority of law; but the power to appropriate must be expressly conferred. ' Id. p. 666.

It is elsewhere stated that:

'The act authorizing condemnation must be express and clear. If there are doubts as to the extent of the power, after all reasonable intendments in its favor, the doubts should be resolved by a decision adverse to the claim of power. ' Mills, Em. Dom. Sec. 48.

The supreme court of Massachusetts sustains this proposition:

'It must appear that the government intended to exercise this high sovereign right by clear and express terms, or by necessary implication, leaving no doubt or uncertainty respecting such intent. It must also appear by the act that they recognized the right of private property, and means to respect it; and, under our constitution, the act conveying the power must be accompanied by just and constitutional provisions, for full compensation to be made to the owner. ' Boston, etc., R. Corp. v. Salem, etc., R. Co., 2 Gray, 36.

In applying this rule of construction to the legislation enacted by congress with regard to the particular matter under consideration, we find, first, that by the act of March 2, 1889, the congress of the United States has authorized and directed the secretary of the treasury to establish a lighthouse station on Saint Catherine's Island, state of Georgia, at a point which the lighthouse board may select as the most eligible, at a cost not to exceed $20,000. We find thereafter, in the act of 1893, that congress has appropriated 'for the establishment of a light station near the entrance to Saint Catherine's Sound, Ga., $20,000. ' Now, it is not to be understood that congress intended to establish two light stations there; and yet, if full effect is given to the terms of both of these acts, it could do so, for, under the proof, a light station might be established near the entrance to Saint Catherine's Sound, and not established on Saint Catherine's Island at all. It might be on Ossabaw Island. The two enactments relate to the same subject-matter,-- that is, the same light station and the same appropriation; but neither provides for anything more than for authority and direction to the secretary of the treasury to establish the light station. He may do so, in the opinion of the court, either on Saint Catherine's Island or on Ossabaw Island, or at some shoal, outside low-water mark; and it is nowhere expressly provided in either act that he may procure or acquire real estate. Nor does this appear by necessary implication. The light station itself may, under the terms of this act, cost $20,000. There is no provision made for the compensation of a landowner whose land may be desired by the government; and yet we are trying a proceeding to condemn the land of the defendant, Mr. Rauers. Are proceedings, then, for condemnation for the purposes of the public use, contemplated by these acts of congress? What is the statute upon that subject? It is this:

'That in every case in which the secretary of the treasury or any other officer of the government has been, or hereafter shall be, authorized to procure real estate for the erection of a public building or for other public uses, he shall be, and hereby is, authorized to acquire the same for the United States by condemnation under judicial process, whenever, in his opinion, it is

...