compulsive for establishing Congressional control of water navigation as a constitutionally established prerogative are, if anything, more cogent with regard to navigation of the air. There can be no air pocket so closed and confined within the geographical limits of any state as to be incontiguous to the interstate and international highways of the air.
Unquestionably there are certain fields of endeavor in which local viewpoints, local situations and local interests are determining factors. Others, however, transcend the limitations of parochial interest and become part of the concern of all of the people of America, rather than any one State. Unquestionably, attempted restriction of Federal rights by over clamorous and undue insistence on States rights add nothing to the importance of the States, and by hampering the activities of National Government destroys the effectiveness of its operation in those matters which concern all of the people.
This Court has already had occasion to hold in United States v. Cardinale Warehouse Corp., D.C., 65 F.Supp. 760, 762, that no State Government may create 'a right for an individual citizen of that state paramount to the right of the Federal Government as to the same subject matter' and 'granted that the United States may exercise a right, that right may not, in the absence of specific warrant by Congress, be restricted, crimped, cabined or confined by any other authority. To hold otherwise would be to contend that any one of the United States possesses the power to limit the proper functions of the Federal Government.' This Court there held, in a suit by the United States to recover property upon which a warehouseman claimed a lien under state law, that 'no lien may be exerted against the government without its consent, any more than may the government be sued without its consent, for reasons at least as potent, if not more so, for such immunity.'
In United States v. Alleghency County, 1943, 322 U.S. 174, 182, 183, 64 S. Ct. 908, 913, 88 L. Ed. 1209, the Supreme Court stated:
'Every acquisition, holding, or disposition of property by the Federal Government depends upon proper exercise of a constitutional grant of power. * * *
'Procurement policies so settled under federal authority may not be defeated or limited by state law. The purpose of the supremacy clause was to avoid the introduction of the disparities, confusions and conflicts which would follow if the Government's general authority were subject to local controls. The validity and construction of contracts through which the United States is exercising its constitutional functions, their consequences on the rights and obligations of the parties, the titles or liens which they create or permit, all present questions of federal law not controlled by the law of any State. Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 63 S. Ct. 573, 87 L. Ed. 838; Board of Com'rs of Jackson County v. United States, 308 U.S. 343, 60 S. Ct. 285, 84 L. Ed. 313; Carpenter v. Shaw, 280 U.S. 363, 50 S. Ct. 121, 74 L. Ed. 478; Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 37 S. Ct. 387, 61 L. Ed. 791; United States v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Co., 218 U.S. 452, 31 S. Ct. 49, 54 L. Ed. 1107; see D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 315 U.S. 447, 62 S. Ct. 676, 86 L. Ed. 956; Deitrick v. Greaney, 309 U.S. 190, 60 S. Ct. 480, 84 L. Ed. 694; Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 62 S. Ct. 1, 86 L. Ed. 65. Federal statutes may declare liens in favor of the Government and establish their priority over subsequent purchasers or lienors irrespective of state recording acts. Detroit Bank v. United States, 317 U.S. 329, 63 S. Ct. 297, 87 L. Ed. 304; United States v. Snyder, 149 U.S. 210, 13 S. Ct. 846, 37 L. Ed. 705. * * * ' (Emphasis supplied.)See also United States v. Wm. R. Trigg Co., 115 Va. 272, 277, 278, 78 S.E. 542.
Since, then, this court is of the opinion that the regulatory provisions of recordation in accordance with the Civil Aeronautics Act is within the scope of proper application of Federal Law in a field of Federal competence, the lien claimed by the United States of America is senior to any claim established under a State Law affecting the same object.
No condition or requirement, inconsistent with the expressed will of Congress in matters such as this over which it has constitutional authority, may be established by any state in derogation of the rights and interests of the United States in the proper conduct of the affairs of government. This last statement needs no monotonous recital of authorities for its substantiation.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.