The relation of the federal power to state governmental instrumentalities has been further illustrated in the matter of the Federal Government's right of eminent domain, it having been held that the General Government has an implied right of eminent domain which it may exercise within a State with or without that State's consent.61 Though never authoritatively decided the better opinion is, however, that the United States may not take for its own use land or other property essential to the State in performance of its governmental functions.

The subject will receive fuller treatment in its appropriate place.62

60 Jones v. Keep (19 Wis. 376); Fifield v. Close (15 Mich. 505); Tucker v. Potter (35 Conn. 46); Moore v. Quirk (105 Mass. 49); Sayles v. Davis (22 Wis. 225); Davis v. Richardson (45 Miss. 503); Garland v. Gaines (73 Conn. 662); 52 L. R. A. 915. Cf. Judson, On Taxation, § 501.

61 Monongahela Navigation Co. v. U. S. (148 U. S. 312; 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622; 37 L. ed. 463); Chappell v. U. S. (160 U. S. 499; 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 397; 40 L. ed. 510).

62 McClain, Constitutional Late in the United Slates, p. 111, says: "As between the Federal Government and a state government, neither one can authorize the condemnation for public use of land which has already been acquired either by condemnation or purchase by the other for public use." He cites, however, no authority, and, moreover, adds: "Possibly the United States Government could not, by any action of the State, be excluded from appropriating state property for federal purposes, but such questions are not likely to arise, for it is hardly conceivable that the Federal Government should find it expedient and necessary to interfere with any State in the enjoyment and discharge of its public rights and duties."