UNITED STATES ». DB MOTT. 481 �their taking private property without compensation. If it is not 60 exeroised they can or should aequire no greater, right than is conferred by the state on the person or munici- pal corporation, or is contained in the franchise of a railway charter, like that of the relators here. Should it be admitted or determined that the United States, under oircumstances Buch as are disclosed by this investigation, can claim an ab- soiute right to continue the carrying of their mail matter upon the tracks and in the cars of the company, it might amount to a virtual confiscation of individual property, and Btate laws become ineffective for its protection. I am not prepared to sanction so sweeping a claim on the part of the United States, �Still,the latter have acquired a right to the use of the road for the purposes in question that is entitled to considera- tion, that entera properly as an element for determination, and that cannot be disposed of in the summary and annoy- ing manner developed in this case without inconvenience if not detriment to the public interest. While the United States, primarily, should not be compelled to ascertain whether the company have or not acquired fuU and clear title, yet, when notified of failure by any persons who claim the right under the judicial sanction of the state, and have been placed in actual possession of part of the premises for any reason, it ■would disclose a fact that no alleged plea of paramount do- main -n'ould warrant them in disregarding. �The owner of the land was delivered possession on the twelfth of February last, under the remediai process of the Btate court. She takes it, however, subject to the equitable right of third parties, without notice. No notice whatever appears to have been given to the United States or their agents, on behalf of the owner, of the olear legal right and posses- Bion thus acquired. Nor does there appear to bave been any time allowed for reasonable notice, as the acts upon which this information is based occurred on the 16th. The agents of the owner have prooeeded upon the idea that no other rights were involved than their own; at least, that seems to be so from the testimony. �v.3,no.9— 31 ����
