222 BURTON, J., dissenting. Coupled with the reasoning of the Court and its quotations from earlier cases, these allowances support the position taken by the lower courts in the instant case. They are "additional values" allowed for the location, special suitability and availability of the riparian land for use in connection with the recognized future public use of the area. In fact, the uses for which the allowances are made are of the very same type as that for which the land has been condemned. There is no allowance for strategic or "hold-up" value. The Chandler case thus supplies specific authority for the decision of the lower courts in the instant case. 3. In fixing the compensation for the same eight acres and the smaller area, the District Court also made a basic allowance of $20,000 for the value of the strip "for all general purposes, like residences, or hotels, factory sites, disconnected with water power etc.," and $10,000 in relation to the smaller area for "general wharfage, dock and warehouse purposes." Id., at 74, 75. This Court upheld both, thereby further demonstrating that the location of land is a proper element to be considered in determining "just compensation.” 4. On the other hand, the District Court approved one other element of "additional value" in relation to these land areas which this Court rejected. In valuing the eight acres, the District Court allowed an "additional value" of $20,000 for "use as factory site in connection with the development of 6,500 horse power, either as a single site or for several factories to use the surplus of 6,500 horse power not now used in the city." Id., at 74-75. Likewise, in valuing the smaller area, the District Court allowed an additional value of $5,000 in "connec some particular use-e. g., to the use of a public park—all the circumstances which make up this adaptability may be shown, and the fact of such adaptation may be taken into consideration in estimating the compensation.'" 229 U. S., at 78. BURTON, J., dissenting. 350 U.S. tion with the canal along the rapids, if used as a part of the development of 4,500 (6,500) horse power." Id., at 75. It has been suggested that these rejections are in conflict with the Court's simultaneous approval of the additional values of the same land for canal or lock purposes. The Government also claims to find in these rejections some support for its opposition in the instant case to any allowance reflecting the favorable location of the fast land it has taken on the banks of the Savannah River. The Court's reasons for rejecting these particular values in the Chandler case, as expressly stated by Justice Lurton, lend no such support to the Government's position in the instant case. He said: "... These 'additional' values were based upon the erroneous hypothesis that that company [ChandlerDunbar] had a private property interest in the water power of the river, not possibly needed now or in the future for purposes of navigation, and that that excess or surplus water was capable, by some extension of their works already in the river, of producing 6,500 horse power. "Having decided that the Chandler-Dunbar Company as riparian owners had no such vested property right in the water power inherent in the falls and rapids of the river, and no right to place in the river the works essential to any practical use of the flow of the river, the Government cannot be justly required to pay for an element of value which did not inhere in these parcels as upland." Id., at 75–76. In other words, the rejected values were not part of the fair market value of the land for any assured use. They sought to recognize a value in the fast land for factory sites which were conditioned upon there being excess water in the stream not needed by the Government for 222 BURTON, J., dissenting. navigation, and further conditioned upon the development by Chandler of structures in the bed of the stream to develop 6,500 additional horsepower from this excess water. Not only was there found to be no such excess water but Chandler's potential power development within the bed of the stream was expressly disallowed. The rejection thus was due to the speculative nature of the proposed use and not to the favorable riparian location of the land for assured uses. It was thoroughly consistent with the Court's allowance of established values of the land for canal and lock purposes. To accept the Government's position in the instant case would, in effect, extend its navigation servitude far above and beyond the high-water mark of the Savannah River. In the face of decisions uniformly limiting that servitude to the bed of the stream, the Government would take 4,700 acres of private property for a public use, substantially without compensation therefor. This would enforce the Government's right of condemnation, while repudiating its constitutional obligation to pay for the private property taken. The justice of sustaining the interpretation placed on the Fifth Amendment by the courts below is emphasized in the following statements made by this Court in Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 324, 325: “. . . The question presented is not whether the United States has the power to condemn and appropriate this property of the Monongahela Company, for that is conceded, but how much it must pay as compensation therefor. Obviously, this question, as all others which run along the line of the extent of the protection the individual has under the Constitution against the demands of the government, is of importance; for in any society the fulness and sufficiency of the securities which surround the individ BURTON, J., dissenting. 350 U.S. ual in the use and enjoyment of his property constitute one of the most certain tests of the character and value of the government. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights. . . . And in this there is a natural equity which commends it to every one. It in no wise detracts from the power of the public to take whatever may be necessary for its uses; while, on the other hand, it prevents the public from loading upon one individual more than his just share of the burdens of government, and says that when he surrenders to the public something more and different from that which is exacted from other members of the public, a full and just equivalent shall be returned to him." For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed. Syllabus. STEINER ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS CUMBERLAND BATTERY MANUFACTURING CO., v. MITCHELL, SECRETARY OF LABOR. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 22. Argued November 16, 1955. Decided January 30, 1956. Workers in a plant manufacturing wet storage batteries, in which extensive use is made of dangerously caustic and toxic materials, are compelled by vital considerations of health and hygiene and by other considerations to change clothes before and after work and to shower after work in facilities which state law requires their employer to provide. Held: Changing clothes and showering are parts of their "principal," rather than their "preliminary" or "postliminary," activities, within the meaning of § 4 (a) (2) of the Portal-to-Portal Act, and the time spent in these activities must be counted in measuring the work-time for which compensation is required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Pp. 248-256. (a) Activities performed either before or after the regular work shift, on or off the production line, are compensable under the portal-to-portal provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, if those activities are an integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for which covered workmen are employed and are not specifically excluded by § 4 (a)(1). P. 256. (b) The conclusion here reached is supported by the legislative history of the Portal-to-Portal Act and by other provisions of the Act and amendments thereto. Pp. 253-256. (c) On the facts of this case, changing clothes and showering by these employees clearly are integral and indispensable parts of the principal activity of their employment. Pp. 249-252, 256. 215 F. 2d 171, affirmed. Cecil Sims argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief was Louis Leftwich, Jr. Bessie Margolin argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, Ralph S. Spritzer, Stuart Rothman and Sylvia S. Ellison. 362618 O-56-22 |