sense, until the stocking was broken open during the play. At that time, and when so found, it was in the possession of all, and all the boys are, therefore, equally finders of the money, and it must be equally divided between them. The case is most peculiar in its circumstances and differs from any of the cases cited by counsel; but the general principles to be applied are stated in the cases cited in 7 Amer. & Eng. Ency. Law, p. 977, and notes. In Durfee v. Jones, II R. I. 588, 23 Am. Rep. 528, the bailee for sale of a safe, while examining it found a sum of lost money inside the casing, and was held entitled to retain it as finder against the owner of the safe, because the owner never had any conscious possession of the money. All of the cases agree that some intention or state of mind with reference to the lost property is an essential element to constitute a legal finder of such property."
The "General Welfare" Clause. — This very elastic phrase in the Federal Constitution has re ceived a fresh elongation by the decision of the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry. Co., in January last, revers ing the court below, and holding that Congress may condemn the site of the battle of Gettysburg, for the purpose of preserving it and erecting monuments and tablets to indicate the positions of the various military bodies at the battle. Mr. Justice Peckham waxed unusually sentimental as follows : — "The end to be attained, by this proposed use, as pro vided for by the act of Congress, is legitimate, and lies within the scope of the Constitution. The battle of Get tysburg was one of the great battles of the world. The numbers contained in the opposing armies were great; the sacrifice of life was dreadful; while the bravery and, in deed, heroism, displayed by both contending forces, rank with the highest exhibition of those qualities ever made by man. The importance of the issue involved in the contest of which this great battle was a part cannot be overesti mated. The existence of the government itself, and the perpetuity el our institutions, depended upon the result. Valuable lessons in the art of war can now be learned from an examination of this great battlefield, in connection with the history of the events which there took place. Can it be that the government is without power to pre serve the land, and properly mark out the various sites up on which this struggle took place? Can it not erect the monuments provided for by these acts of Congress, or even take possession of the field of battle, in the name and for the benefit of all the citizens of the country, for the pres ent and for the future? Such a use seems necessarily not only a public use, but one so closely connected with the welfare of the republic itself as to be within the powers granted Congress by the Constitution for the purpose of protecting and preserving the whole country. It would be a great object-lesson to all who looked upon the land thus cared for, and it would show a proper recognition of the great things that were done there on those momentous days. By this use the government manifests tor the bene fit of all its citizens the value put upon the services and ex ertions of the citizen soldiers of that period. Their sue
cessful effort to preserve the integrity and solidarity of the great republic of modern times is forcibly impressed upon every one who looks over the field. The value of the sac rifices then freely made is rendered plainer and more dur able by the fact that the government of the United States, through its representatives in Congress assembled, appre ciates and endeavors to perpetuate it by this most suitable recognition. Such action on the part of Congress touches the heart, and comes home to the imagination of every cit izen, and greatly tends to enhance his love and respect for those institutions for which these heroic sacrifices were made. The greater the love of the citizen for the institu tions of his country, the greater is the dependence properly to be placed upon him for their defense in time of neces sity, and it is to such men that the country must look for its safety. The institutions of our country, which were saved at this enormous expenditure of life and property, ought to and will be regarded with proportionate affection. Here upon this battlefield is one of the proofs of that expendi ture, and the sacrifices are rendered more obvious and more easily appreciated when such a battlefield is pre served by the government at the public expense. The right to take land for cemeteries for the burial of the de ceased soldiers of the country rests on the same footing, and is connected with, and springs from, the same powers of the Constitution. It seems very clear that the govern ment has the right to bury its own soldiers, and to see to it that their graves shall not remain unknown or unhonored. No narrow view of the character of this proposed use should be taken. Its national character and importance, we think, are plain. The power to condemn for this purpose need not be plainly and unmistakably deduced from any one of the particularly specified powers. Any number of these powers may be grouped together, and an inference from them all may be drawn that the power claimed has been conferred." This is undoubtedly the greatest strain to which the Federal power of acquisition has been put. The ground cannot answer any visible purpose of military education, and it is not necessary to use all the land for a cemetery, and it is no part of the pur pose of the government to give "object lessons," or any other form of inculcation in patriotism; and yet it would seem ungracious and unpatriotic to criticise the decision or the earnest words in which it is embodied. It may well be doubted that the framers of the Constitution would have dreamed that the site of Hunker Hill could be taken away from its owners, and the public money appropriated to pre serving and beautifying it as a national park. We do not find fault with the decision. We are glad that the Court were able to find the law so susceptible to emotional and sentimental influences; but on the reasoning of the learned justice it is difficult to see why the public money might not be appropriated to the erection of commemorative monuments all over the country. One to Columbus might be in order. But the money is better spent than for Congressional junketings in the guise of funerals and for improve ments of muddv creeks.
