Amend. 5.-Rights of Persons-Private Property. priated or used by the Government itself without just compensation, any more than it can appropriate or use without compensation land which had been patented to a private purchaser. James v. Campbell, 104 U. S. 358. Hollister v. Benedict, etc., Mfg. Co., 113 U. S. 67. Destruction of well by blasting.-Where by reason of the construction of a tunnel to increase the water supply of the city of Washington a well on an adjoining tract of land was drained and destroyed, the owner was entitled to recover under the act of Congress authorizing the construction of the tunnel and providing for recovery under such conditions. U. S. v. Alexander, 148 U. S. 186. Confiscation of property of public enemy.-Property confiscated under an act of Congress as the property of a public enemy is not so taken as to give a right to recover its value under this clause. U. S. v. Dunnington, 146 U. S. 344. Consequential Injury There is a distinction between the taking of property for public uses and a consequential injury to such property by reason of some public work. In the one class the law implies a contract, a promise to pay for the property taken, which, if the taking was by the General Government, will uphold an action in the Court of Claims, while in the other class there is simply a tortious act doing injury, over which the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction. U. S. v. Lynah, 188 U. S. 472. Horstmann Co. v. U. S., 257 U. S. 138. When the Government for war purposes requisitioned the entire production of a steel manufacturer, rendering impossible and unlawful of performance an outstanding contract between the manufacturer and a customer, the customer's rights were not taken by the Government contrary to this amendment. Omnia Co. v. U. S., 261 U. S. 502. This provision refers only to a direct appropriation and not to consequential injuries resulting from the exercise of lawful power. It has never been supposed to have any bearing upon or to inhibit laws that indirectly work harm and loss to individuals. Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457. Without Just Compensation Definition The just compensation required by the Constitution to be made to the owner is to be measured by the loss occasioned to him by the appropriation. He is entitled to receive the value of what he has been deprived of, and no more. Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 574. See also McCoy v. Union El. R. Co., 247 U. S. 354, as to special benefits to owner. Amend 5.-Rights of Persons-Private Property. The value of the property to the Government for its particular use is not a criterion, but the owner is to be paid its fair market value for all available uses and purposes. U. S. v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 229 U. S. 53. Compensation by Substitution Where establishment of a reservoir under the reclamation act involved flooding part of a town, the United States had constitutional power to take by condemnation other private land nearby, in the only practicable and available place, as a new town site to which the buildings affected could be moved at the expense of the United States and new lots be provided in full or part satisfaction for those flooded. Brown v. U. S. (263 U. S. 78), in which the court said: A method of compensation by substitution would seem to be the best means of making the parties whole. The power of condemnation is necessary to such a substitution. Measure of Compensation a Judicial Question The legislature may determine what private property is needed for public purposes-that is a question of a political and legislative character; but when the taking has been ordered, then the question of compensation is judicial. Monongahela Nav. Co. v. U. S., 148 U. S. 327. U. S. v. Collieries Co., 262 U. S. 341. Necessity for Making Compensation The right to take private property for public uses can be exercised only on condition that just compensation is paid. Garrison v. New York, 21 Wall. 196. U. S. v. Lynah, 188 U. S. 445. Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas R. Co., 135 U. S. 659. U. S. v. Russell, 13 Wall. 629. Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 How. 134. The mere silence of Congress and its failure directly to interfere and prevent the original construction of a bridge erected under the sanction of a State, over an interstate waterway, imposes no constitutional obligation upon the United States to make compensation for subsequent changes or alterations which the public good in its judgment requires. Monongahela Brdg. Co. v. U. S., 216 U. S. 177. Kaukauna Water Power Co. v. Green Bay, etc., Canal Co., 142 U. S. 254. Government Liable for Property Taken by Agents When the United States, by its agents, proceeding under the authority of an act of Congress, take private property for public use they are under the obligation imposed by the Constitution to make compensation. U. S. v. Great Falls Mfg. Co., 112 U. S. 656. Amend. 5.-Rights of Persons-Private Property. Tribunal to Determine Value of Property The compensation to be made may be ascertained by any appropriate tribunal capable of estimating the value of the property. And whether the tribunal shall be created directly by an act of Congress or one already established by the State shall be adopted for the occasion is a mere matter of legislative discretion. U. S. v. Jones, 109 U. S. 518. The estimate of the just compensation for property taken for the public use under the right of eminent domain is not required to be made by a jury, but may be intrusted by Congress to commissioners appointed by a court or by the Executive, or to an inquest consisting of more or fewer men than an ordinary jury. Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 593. Right of Ejectment on Failing to Make Compensation This provision was intended to be enforced by the judiciary, and the Federal courts may take jurisdiction of an action in ejectment by a citizen against officers of the Government to recover property of which he has been deprived by force and which has been converted to the use of the Government without lawful authority, without due process of law, and without compen sation. U. S. v. Lee, 106 U. S. 220. Error of the trial judge in admitting evidence or entering judgment after full hearing in ejectment action does not constitute a deprivation of property without due process of law. Jones v. Buffalo, etc., Coke Co., 245 U. S. 328. Amendment 6.'-CRIMINAL TRIALS. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Leading Cases In Ex parte Milligan (4 Wall. 122) the court said: The great minds of the country have differed on the correct interpretation to be given to various provisions of the Federal Constitution; and judicial decision has been often invoked to settle their true meaning; but until recently no one ever doubted that the right of trial by jury was fortified in the organic law against the power of attack. It is now assailed, See p. 25 for ratification. Amend. 6.-Criminal Trials. but if ideas can be expressed in words, and language has any meaning, Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, as to the meaning of "impartial jury." In U. S. v. Cook (17 Wall. 174), the court held: Offenses created by statute, as well as offenses at common law, must be accurately and clearly described in an indictment, and if they can not be, in any case, without an allegation that the accused is not within an exception contained in the statutes defining the offense, it is clear that no indictment founded upon the statute can be a good one which does not contain such an allegation, as it is universally true that no indictment is sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege all the ingredients of which the offense is composed. Scope See also Kirby v. U. S., 174 U. S. 47, as to dying declarations. The prohibitions contained in the sixth amendment were designed to prevent interference with the rights of the States and their citizens, and are restrictive of the power of the Federal Government alone. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243. Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410. Davis v. Texas, 139 U. S. 653. In Case of Conflict with Article III, Section 2, Clause 32 If there be any conflict between this amendment and the third clause of section 2, Article III of the Constitution, the amendment must control "under the well-understood rule that the last expression of the will of the lawmaker prevails over an earlier one." Schick v. U. S., 195 U. S. 68. Limited to Trials in Federal Courts In General This amendment was intended to apply exclusively to the powers exercised by the Federal Government, whether by Congress or by the judiciary, and not as a limitation upon the powers of the States. Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, 134 U. S. 35. Amend. 6.-Criminal Trials. Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 606. Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet. 551. U. S. v. Dawson, 15 How. 487. Twitchell v. Commonwealth, 7 Wall 824. Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131. Brooks v. Missouri, 124 U. S. 397. In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 219. McElvaine v. Brush, 142 U. S. 158. Monongahela Nav. Co. v. U. S., 148 U. S. 324. Courts of the District of Columbia and Territories This amendment is applicable to trials in the courts of the Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, 174 U. S. 5. Lovato v. New Mexico, 242 U. S. 199. Alaska The treaty with Russia concerning Alaska made the Constitution applicable to that Territory, and the provision of section 171 of the Code for Alaska adopted by Congress (31 Stat. 358), wherein, among other things, it was provided "that hereafter in trials for misdemeanors six persons shall constitute a legal jury," was held repugnant to this amendment. Rassmussen v. U. S., 197 U. S. 516. Porto Rico This amendment has no applicability to Porto Rico, the island not having been incorporated into the Union. Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U. S. 298. Consular Courts Statutes giving consuls criminal jurisdiction are not invalid for not preserving to the accused person the right to be tried by jury. In re Ross, 44 Fed. 185, affirmed in 140 U. S. 459. In All Criminal Prosecutions This amendment "relates to the prosecution of an accused person which is technically criminal in its nature." U. S. v. Zucker, 161 U. S. 481. An action to recover a penalty under an act of Congress is not a criminal prosecution. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U. S. 320. Hepner v. U. S., 213 U. S. 103. But when the statute declares the conduct denounced to be a misdemeanor the action for the penalty may be prosecuted either by indictment or by civil action. U. S. v. Stevenson, 215 U. S. 199. The framers of the Constitution doubtless meant to limit the right of trial by jury in the sixth amendment to those persons who were subject to indictment or presentment in the fifth. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 123. |