158 HARVARD LAW REVIEW, 7 ture authorized the Connecticut River Company to raise their existing dam across the river in Connecticut, in order to improve the navigation, and also maintain the water power of the Company. "The second section of the Act related to the assessment and payment of damages which should accrue to the property of any person by reason of the exercise of the powers conferred " by the Act.^ The Connecticut River Company's dam was about sixteen miles below the dam, works, and factories controlled by the Holyoke Water Power Company at Holyoke, Mass. The Con- necticut River Company proposed to raise their dam in Connecti- cut so high that it would produce to the Holyoke Company a pecuniary injury for a period of six or seven months in the year, by the diminution of its fall, but not by an overflow of its land. The court, following a Connecticut decision (which might not be fol- lowed in some other States), said that this was "a consequential injury," not " a taking of property." The court also said (follow- ing a Connecticut decision) that there would be no right of action, and no relief for such a consequential injury to land within the borders of Connecticut ; but the court held that the Legislature of Connecticut could not authorize the doing of this consequential injury to land, or to rights connected with land, in Massachusetts. An injunction was granted to prevent the raising of the dam. After holding that no action could have been maintained for such consequential injury to land within the borders of Connecti- cut, Shipman, J. said : ^ — " In this case the injury will be caused to property beyond the limits of Connecticut, and the question arises whether the doctrine which has been asserted is applicable to this state of facts. " This question has never, so far as I can ascertain, been decided by the courts of this country. The question has arisen whether, by virtue of the right of eminent domain, one State can take, or subject to public use, land in another State, and the decisions have naturally been against such a power.^ In two cases which have recently arisen in Federal courts, and which involved the right of a State to regulate or improve the navigation of a river wholly within its limits, the judges have carefully limited their decisions I 22 Blatchford, p. 135.
- 52 Conn., pp. 575, 576; 22 Rlatchford, pp. 144, 145,
- Farnum v Canal Co., i Sumner, 46; Salisbury Mills v. Forsaith, 57 N. Hamp.
124 ; Wooster v. Great Falls Co., 39 Maine, 245 ; United States v. Ames, 1 Wood & Minot, 76.
