United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Co.

United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry. Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 8–9, 1896
Decided January 24, 1896
Full case nameUnited States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company
Citations160 U.S. 668 (more)
16 S. Ct. 427; 40 L. Ed. 576
Holding
Eminent domain for historic preservation "seems" to be "a public use".[1]
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
Stephen J. Field · John M. Harlan
Horace Gray · David J. Brewer
Henry B. Brown · George Shiras Jr.
Edward D. White · Rufus W. Peckham
Case opinion
MajorityPeckham, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Appropriation Acts of 1893 (March 3) & 1894 (August 18), 1895 "Sickles Gettysburg Park Bill" (28 Stat. 651)[2]

United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry. Co., 160 U.S. 668 (1896), was a case to prevent trolley operations on the Gettysburg Battlefield. The dispute began in August 1891 when the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Association's board approved attorney Samuel Swope's motion to deny trolley right-of-way along GBMA roads.[3] Despite the 1896 US Supreme Court ruling that the railway could be seized for historic preservation,[1] as well as earlier legislative efforts to appropriate federal acquisition funds, create a War Department commission, and form the Gettysburg National Military Park; the trolley continued operations until obsolete in 1916.

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference SCOTUS was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference GT1970 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Hamilton, Calvin; GBMA secretary (August 25, 1891). "minutes, Board of Directors of the Gettysburg Battlefield Mem. Association" (1982 transcription). Minute Book...1872-1895. Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Association. Retrieved July 10, 2011. Gen. Gobin and W. C. Sheely Esq. representing the Gettysburg Electric Rail Way Company appeared before the Board and asked the right of way over the Association's grounds and along the several Avenues marking the lines of battle. On motion of S. Mc. Swope Esq the request was not granted and the secretary was directed to so notify said Company.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (cited by Unrau p. 64)   NOTE: In 1894 during the trolley suit, Swope became a judge.