This right exists in the District of Colnn3 bia, the territories, and lands within the United States acquired through cession ; Shoemaker v. U. S., 147 U. S. 282, 13 Sup. Ct. 361, 37 L. Ed. 170.
The power of eminent domain in the gen, eral government as exercised for local poses in the District of Columbia is the same as that exercised by a state within its own territory ; Shoemaker v. U. S., 147 U. S. 282,' 13 Sup. Ct. 361, 37 L. Ed. 170 ; there and in the territories it exists in all cases in which a siniilar power could be exercised by the states ; First Nat. Bank v. County of Yank ton, 101 U. S. 129, 25' L. Ed. 1046. It is among the powers derived by the territorial governments immediately from the United States ; Swan v. Williams, 2 Mich. 427 ; Oury v. Goodwin, 3 Ariz. 255, 26 Pac. 376 ; New comb v. Smith, 1 Chand. (Wis.) 71.
Within the states the United States has the right of eminent domain for federal pur poses ; Kohl v. U. S., 91 U. S. 367, 23 L. Ed. 449; Cherokee Nation v. Ry. Co., 130 U. S. 641, 10 Sup. Ct. 965, 34 L. Ed. 295. This power has been exercised to condemn laud for military posts ; U. S. v. Chicago. 7 How. (U. S.) 185,, 12 L. Ed. 660 ; fortification; Gilmer v. Lime Point, 18 Cal. 229; naviga tion work ; King v. U. S., 59 Fed. 9 ; light house and coast survey •purposes ; Orr v. Quimby, 54 N. H. 590 ; Chappell v. U. S., 160 U. S. 499, 16 Sup. Ct. 397, 40 L. Ed. 510; the construction of interstate railroads ; Cali fornia v. R. Co., 127 U. S. 1, 8 Sup. Ct. 1073, 32 L. Ed. 150 ; water supply ; Reddall v. Bryan, 14 Md. 444, 74 Am. Dec. 550; post office ; Kohl v. U. S., 91 U. S. 367, 23 L. Ed. 449; Burt v. Ins. Co., 106 Mass. 356, 8 Am. Rep. 339 ; a national cemetery at Gettys burg; U. S. v. Ry. Co., 160 U. S. 668, 16 Sup. Ct. 427, 40 L. Ed. 576. The weight of au thority is in favor of the exercise of the right by the United States directly when property is required for federal purposes and not through the right of eminent domain of the state; Reddall v. Bryan, 14 Md. 444, 74 Am. Dec. 550; In re Appointment of United States Commissioners, 96 N. Y. 227; though the latter method is upheld in some cases ; U. S. v. Dumplin Island, 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 24;
Burt v. Ins. Co., 106 Mass. 356, 8 Am. Rep. 339; Orr v. Quimby, 54 N. H. • 590 ; but it is held that the United States may dele gate to a tribunal created under the laws of the state the power to fix and determine the amount of compensation to be paid by the federal government for private property taken by it in the exercise of the right of eminent domain; U. S. v. Jones, 109 U. S. 513, 3 Sup. Ct. 346, 27 L. Ed. 1015. The United States circuit court has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings instituted by the United States to appropriate land for a post office; Kohl v. U. S., 91 U. S. 367, 23 L. Ed. 449. In this case there was no act of con gress relating to the subject except the ap propriation of money, and a direction to the secretary of the treasury to purchase a site, and the jurisdiction was objected to. The supreme court held that the proceedings were a suit at law and cognizable under the gen eral provisions of the judiciary act. As to the federal right, see Chattaroi Ry. Co. v. ginner, 14 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 30 ; Kohl v. U. S., 91 U. S. 367, 23 L. Ed. 449. The state cannot Condemn for the United States and bind the latter as to compensation ; Peo ple v. Humphrey, 23 Mich. 471, 9 Am. Rep. 94, in which the whole subject of the exer cise of this right by state and federal gov ernments was considered by Cooley, J. Pro ceedings may be in the United States courts, or in state courts, in the name of the United States, and state practice should be follow ed; In re Appointment of United States Com missioners, 96 N. Y. 227; Jones v. U. S., 48 Wis. 385, 4 N. W. 51.9 ; U. S. v. Jones, 109 U. S. 513, 3 Sup. Ct. 346, 27 L. Ed. 1015; or may by act, of congress be made to follow some state statute ; Darlington v. U. S., 82, Pa. 382, 22 Am. Rep. 766.
Public uses of the federal government have been held to be public uses of the state; Red-. dall v. Bryan, 14 Md. 444, 74 Am. Dec. 550. Proceedings under state laws for condem nation of lands, involving the ascertainment by judicial proceedings of the value of prop erty to be paid as compensation, may be re moved to the United States court ; Searl v. School Dist. No. 2; 124•IL-S. 197, •8--Sup. Ct.