Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.
But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty.
In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments.
In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them. We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the.
Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States. We are therefore of opinion that there is no repugnancy between the several acts of the general assembly of Maryland, given in evidence by the defendants at the trial of this cause, in the court of that State, and the Constitution of the United States. This court, therefore, has no jurisdiction of the cause, and it is dismissed.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Court of Appeals for the Western Shore of the State of Maryland, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is the opinion of this Court that there is no repugnancy between the several acts of the General Assembly of Maryland given in evidence by the defendants at the trial of this cause in the court of that State and the Constitution of the United States; whereupon it is ordered and adjudged by this court that this writ of error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.
Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice.
Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations Annotation Primary Holding The Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government rather than state or local governments, since there is no textual evidence to support a different view. The owner of a wharf in the port of Baltimore, John Barron, alleged that road construction by the city had diverted water flow in the harbor area.
According to Barron, this had affected the value of his wharf because the deposits of sand and earth that resulted from the construction made the water shallow. Fewer vessels and smaller vessels now could dock there, reducing his profits as the wharf's owner.
The state appellate court struck down the damages award. While the decision was reaffirmed by later 19th-century Supreme Court cases, the 20th-century Court moved away from Marshall's view. It has found that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies most of the Bill of Rights to the states under a doctrine known as incorporation. Therefore, Barron, although not explicitly overruled, probably cannot be considered valid law. Syllabus Case U. Supreme Court Barron v.
The city, in the asserted exercise of its corporate authority over the harbor, the paving of streets, and regulating grades for paving, and over the health of Baltimore, diverted from their accustomed and natural course certain streams of water which flow from the range of hills bordering the city, and diverted them, partly by adopting new grades of streets, and partly by the necessary results of paving, and partly by mounds, Page 32 U.
Page 32 U. The plaintiff will contend accordingly: 1. That this is the case of an authority exercised under a Page 32 U. In their several Constitutions, they have imposed such restrictions on their respective Page 32 U. Perceiving, that in a constitution framed by the people of the United States, for the government of all, no limitation of the action of government on Page 32 U.
A Page 32 U. We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Page 32 U.
Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site.
Please check official sources. Namespaces Page Discussion. Views Read View source View history. From Federalism in America. Jump to: navigation , search. Category : Supreme Court Cases. This page was last edited on 18 October , at Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights placed limits on the national government and not on state governments.
As a result of the changed water flow, large masses of sand and earth were deposited in front of a commercial wharf owned by John Barron. The water became so shallow that it ceased to be useful for vessels, and Barron lost significant income. He filed suit against the City of Baltimore, seeking financial compensation for his losses under the Fifth Amendment. However, other provisions of the Constitution do address state activity, citing the following example:.
The U. Supreme Court will return to the bench on October 4, , and conduct oral arguments in p When the U.
0コメント