Title: War Power
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00003087/00001
 Material Information
Title: War Power
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: President's Water Resources Policy Commission
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
Abstract: Richard Hamann's Collections - War Power
General Note: Box 12, Folder 9 ( Water Resources Law - Vol #3 - 1950 ), Item 5
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00003087
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text

reservation, the state ,~ ,y ot -exrcise s taxwg jurisdiC-
On te other had, lands -purchased by the United Stes
without onsentf:f thersttet are not subject to any jurisdi6-
tiionalcotrol by- the state which "would impair or destroy
their' eeativ ue use it the puirose" for which they were -e-
quired Over such lands, thF United Stites has threight
otithki ddiibip$pi rior, except so' far as its wlu e 'jriev
ditibfiE is neeessiry "for the exeention of the power of ttA
general government.' ? '

War Power
In addition to its ,constitutional, power to "declfre: War,"
Cogress also has express power to levy, taxes and to iappropri-
ate funds to provide for the "eomrnon Defence" of the United
States." While the scope of these powers asithey relate to
water reresources remi largely unexplored by the judiciary,
the 1936 Ashwander case casts some light on the subject. ,
Under the 19Q6I Nateonal Defen Aqt, Congress aurized
th *PPresident tao iean investigation to be nqade t'qdeter-
mine the best means for prgodctiPp f nitrates gAd otoiher
products for mniton warsof w ; jto 'deignate fr use, y, the
United States such sites on rivers or public lands as he deemed.
oneedary 7tocart ibut the purposes of the Act; to consteuets
maintain, and operate on any such site navigation imnpwve
ments and: power houses as he deemed.best for generation of'
power for production df nitrates or other prbdudts for muni-'
tions of warand.useful in the Imanufacture, of fertilizer and
other useful products.28 The Act:als specified that products
of such plants were to be used for military purposes and' that
apy., plus was to be disposed of under'egulations prescribed
by the President. Under this authorization, construction of
SBtandard Oil Co. of California v. Califernia 291 U. S.242, A4 (1984).
m Fort Leavenworth R, R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 585, 589 (1885)
114 U. S. at 527.
m" U. 8;OoNs., Art. $ 8eals. 1,11; Art. I, 9, cl. 7.
mAshwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288 (1986).
Act. o June k19A8, J124, 8 Stat. 166, 215, 50 U. S. 79.


the Wilson Dam at Muscle Shoals on the Tennessee River was
begun in 1917 and completed in 1926.
Taking judicial notice of he international situation in 1916,
the Supreme Court concluded that the Wilson Dam and power
plant are "adapted to the purposes of national defense."
Moreover, the Court found ample support for the District
Court's finding that, while there was no intention to use the
nitrate plants or hydroelectric units for production of war ma-
terials in time of peace, the maintenance of those properties
in operating condition and "the assurance of an abundant sup-
ply of electric energy in the event of war, constitute national
defense assets." "' And after discussing the exercise of com-
merce authority involved," the Court then made plain its ap-
proval of the construction as an exercise of both the war and
commerce powers, saying:'3
TheeWilson Dam and its power plant must be taen
ta have been constructed in the exercise of the constitu-
tional functions of the Federal Government.
So far as the disposition of surplus power was concerned, as
previously noted, the Court also held that the Property Clause
empowered Congress to authorize the method employed, In-
cluding the acquisition of transmission lines.n
Subsequently, in the Tennessee Electric Power Company
case, the District Court approved the TVA Act as a proper
exercise of the federal commerce and war po~wea The
Supreme Court did not reach this issue on review, holding peti-
tioners not entitled to challenge the constitutionality of the

S297 U. S. at 827.
S297 U. S. at 328
"297 U. S. at328-380. See also upra, n. 210, p. 50.
297 U. 8. at 330.
S* See supra, pp. 50-51.
*Tennessee Electrio Power Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 21 F.
Supp. 947 (D. C. Tefil. 1938).
,m Tennessee Electroi Power Co. v. Tennessee VaUey Authority, 308 U. S.
118 (1939). See spra, pp. 51-52.


University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs