Pierce Butler

“ The provision authorizing the Secretary to purchase at a cost not to exceed a specified amount has nothing to do with the judicial ascertainment of just compensation for the property condemned. Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U.S. 282, 302, 13 Sup. Ct. 361, 37 L. Ed. 170. Neither the right of the owner to be put in as good position pecuniarily as he would have been if his property had not been taken, [2] nor the right to have ascertainment and payment of just compensation as a condition of the taking [3] is attempted to be impaired by legislation here under consideration. ”

“ It is not necessary that the exact amount required shall be appropriated or that legislation shall indicate no limit upon the expenditure for property to be taken. There is no declaration or evidence of legislative purpose to violate the just compensation clause or to secure the property in question for less than the full amount to which the owner was entitled. [4] The power of eminent domain is not dependent upon any specific grant; it is an attribute o sovereignty, limited and conditioned by the just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment. ”

“ The property is sought to be taken to constitute a part of the intracoastal canal projected by the government extending from Boston to the Rio Grande. A number of acts of Congress [1] must be considered. Prior to the Act approved July 25, 1912, it was contemplated that the right of way necessary for the enterprise would be secured to the United States free of cost. That act authorized the Secretary of War to purchase the Hanson Canal for use as a part of the waterway from Franklin to Mermentau, La., included in the intracoastal project, at a cost not to exceed $65,000. ”