This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1921 Excerpt:...and its failure to directly interfere and prevent the original construction of a bridge erected under the sanction of the State, over an inter-tate waterway, imposes no constitutional obligation upon the United States to make compensation for subsequent changes or alterations which the public good in itj judgment requires. (President, etc., of Monongahela Bridge Co. v. U. S. (1910). 30 Sup. Ct. 356, 216 U. S. 177, 54 L. Ed. 435; U S. v. Union Bridge Co. (D. C. 1906), 143 Fed. 377, judgment affirmed Union Bridge Co. v. U. S. (1907). 27 Sup. Ct. 367. 204, U S. 364. 51 L. Ed. 523. ) Act of Wisconsin. June 29, 1848, providing for the improvement of the Fox and Wisconsin Rivers, and for connecting the same by a canal, declared that any water power created by any dams built in the course of such improvement should belong to the State. The State subsequently granted all the property rights and privilegeto an improvement company. The property and franchises of the improvement company having been transferred to a canal company by the foreclo-ure of a mortgage thereon, the canal company subsequently conveyed the same to the United States under authority of an act of Congress passed in 1870, reserving, however, the right to the surplus water power created by the dam, together with such rights and privileges in the land as were necessary to the enjoyment thereof. Held that, notwithstanding this reservation, the duty to make compensation to the landowner followed the public use, and the United States became liable therefor. (Kaukauna Water Power Company v. Green Bav and M. Canal Co. (1891), 142 U. S. 254, 12 Sup. Ct. 173, 35 1,. Ed. 1004, affirming (1888) 70 Wis. 635, 35 N. W. 529, 36 N. W. 828.) A statute authorizing the taking of private property for public use. which...