## Facts

- Congress enacted the Historic Sites Act of 1935, declaring a national policy to preserve historic sites of national significance for public use.
- The Secretary of the Interior determined that certain St. Louis, Missouri riverfront lands had exceptional national historical value and constituted an historic site.
- The President issued an executive order adopting the Secretary’s determination and directing the Secretary to acquire and develop the property for the Act’s purposes.
- Funding for acquisition and development consisted of a $2,250,000 contribution deposited by the City of St. Louis and a $6,750,000 federal allocation, totaling $9,000,000.
- The United States filed a federal condemnation action to acquire the land; a landowner (Barnidge) objected on statutory and constitutional grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether the Historic Sites Act, read with general federal condemnation authority, permitted the United States to acquire land for historic-site purposes by eminent domain.
2. Whether acquiring land to preserve and commemorate a nationally significant historic site is a “public use” under the Fifth Amendment.
3. Whether the Act unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the Secretary of the Interior or the President.
4. Whether legally available funds existed to satisfy just compensation so the condemnation could proceed.
5. Whether condemnation in this posture results in a personal money judgment against the United States.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment sustaining condemnation.
- The court held the Act’s purposes could be carried out through condemnation under general federal eminent-domain statutes.
- The court held preservation of nationally significant historic property for public benefit is a valid public use.
- The court rejected the nondelegation challenge, finding Congress set a policy and workable standards and left fact-finding and execution to the Executive.
- The court found the federal allocation and city deposit demonstrated sufficient available funds for compensation.
- The court stated condemnation is an in rem proceeding; no personal money judgment runs against the United States beyond the obligation to pay just compensation into court.

## Legal Principles

- Federal eminent domain is an attribute of sovereignty and may be exercised when Congress authorizes acquisition for a legitimate federal purpose.
- Statutes declaring a federal preservation policy, when implemented through general condemnation authority, can support takings of land needed to effectuate that policy.
- “Public use” under the Fifth Amendment includes acquisition for historic preservation and national memorial purposes, not solely utilitarian projects.
- A delegation is constitutional when Congress provides an intelligible standard (e.g., national significance and public use) and assigns agencies the task of identifying qualifying sites and implementing the program.
- In federal condemnation, the judgment concerns title and compensation paid into court; it does not create a personal damages judgment against the condemning sovereign.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld the federal government’s taking of St. Louis riverfront property for a nationally significant historic site, concluding that condemnation was authorized, served a Fifth Amendment public use, involved a valid delegation of administrative discretion, and could proceed with adequate funds available for just compensation.


Barnidge v. United States, 101 F.2d 295 (8th Cir. 1939)