The United States cannot take state prop erty devoted to a public use and the loss of which would interfere with the performance of its duties by the state. It was on •this principle that the right to tax a state judi cial officer upon his salary was denied to the United States ; The Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 113, 20 L. Ed. 122 ; but the United States may acquire an easement in the property of a state which does not inter fere with its ordinary use, as by the placing of telegraph poles, under a federal authority, upon state roads ; City of St. Louis v. Tele graph Co., 148 U. S. 92, 13 Sup. Ct. 485, 37 L. Ed. 380 ; City of Richmond v. Telegraph Co., 174 U. S. 761, 19 Sup. Ct. 778, 43 L. Ed. 1162.
It has been said that a necessity •of the federal government would override the right of the state to the occupancy of property for public use-that what was devoted to a lo cal public use might be taken for a higher national use ; New Orleans v. U. S., 10 Pet. (U. S.) 662, 723, 9 L. Ed. 573 ; and it was said by Bradley, J., that "if it is necessary that the United States government should have an eminent domain still higher than that of the state, in order that it may fully carry out the objects and purposes of the constitution, then it has it" ; Stockton v. R. Co., 32 Fed. 9; it has paramount authority in the matter of taking any property within its borders for those public uses which are within the constitutional reservations to the general government ; U. S. v. City of Tiffin, 190 Fed. 279 ; and in the Northern Securi ties Case it was said that state legislation, even if in the exercise of its unquestioned power, must yield, in case of conflict, to the supremacy of the United States constitution and the acts of congress passed pursuant to it ; Northern Securities Co. v: S., 193 U. S. 197, 24 Sup. Ct. 436, 48 L. Ed. 679. As to the nature and extent of power of condem nation of the United States, see note, 70 C. C. A. 653.
On the other hand, the state cannot con demn land held by the United States and used for public purposes •; U. S. v. Chicago, 7 How. (U. S.) 185, 12 L. Ed. 660 ; nor can a territory; Pratt v. Brown, 3 Wis. 603. With respect to land not used for public purposes of which the United States is considered as a private proprietor, it has been held that such land might be taken ; Hendricks v. Johnson, 6 Port. (Ala.) 472 ; U. S. v. R. Bridge Co., 6 McLean 517, Fed. Cas. No. 16,114, approved by a dictum in U. S. v. Chi
cago, 7 How. (U. S.) 185, 12 L. Ed. 660, and apparently disapproved in Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U. S. 151, 6 Sup. Ct. 670, 29 L. Ed. 845, where Gray, J. suggests that the question, will, when raised, require careful consideration. When the state has ceded land to the federal government it has lost its jurisdiction entirely ; Ft. Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525, 5 Sup. Ct. 995, 29' L. Ed. 264 ; U. S. v. Cornell, 2 Mas. 60, Fed. Cas. No. 14,867 ; People v. Godfrey, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 225; Mitchell v. Tibbetts, 17 Pick. (Mast.) 298 ; Sinks v. Reese, 19 Ohio St. 306, 2 Am. Rep. 397 ; and hence the state cannot condemn land within the ceded district ; U. S. v. Ames, 1 Woodb. & M. 76, Fed. Cas. No. 14,441; In re Opinion of the Justices, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 580. But when land has been acquired by the United States without the consent of the state, the state retains its ju risdiction and may act with respect to it, so far as it does not interfere with the use of the property by the United States ; Ft. Leav enworth R. Co. V. Lowe, 114 TJ. S. 525, 5-Sup.
Ct. 995, 29 L. Ed. 264 ; but whether in the exercise of this jurisdiction there is included the power of condemnatiOn remains an open' question ; Nichols, Em. Dom. 25.
The state may condemn for another public use the land of an interstate railroad charter ed by congress if it does not interfere with its operation ; Union Pae. Ry. Co. v. R. Co., 3 Fed. 106 ; Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Ry. Co., 3 Fed. 702 ; Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. R. Co., 29 Fed. 728.
A federal court may require proceeding to condemn a crossing over a railroad, in the hand of a receiver appointed by it, to brought withit its jurisdiction ; Buckhan non & N. R. Co. v. Davis, 135 Fed. 707, 68 C. C. A. 345 ; and when the owner of land and the party seeking to condemn it are citizens of the same state, the condemnation proceedings may be begun in, or removed to, the federal court ; Mississippi & R. River Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403, .25 L., Ed. 206 ; Madisonville Traction Co. v. Min. Co., 196- U. S. 239, 25 Sup. Ct. 251, 49 L. Ed. 462; Kansas City v. Hennegan, 152 Fed. 249;, Deepwater R. Co. v. Lumber Co., 152 Fed. 824 ; but it must follow the procedure of the state statute ; East Tennessee, Va. & Ga. R. Co. v. Telegraph Co., 112 U. S. 306, 5 Sup. Ct. 168, 28 L. Ed. 746 ; Broadmoor Land Co. v. Curr, 142 Fed. 421, 73 C. C. A. 537.