If in such cases suitable and adequate provision is made by the Legislature for the compensation of those whose property or franchise is injured or taken away, there is no violation of public faith or private right. It is also a well-established principle that no construction of the clause in the Bill of Rights (in any constitution) providing compensation for property taken for a public use shall so extend the benefits of the clause as to give indirect or consequential damages to a person when the public already has a rightful use of the property.[217] 83. Though the right of eminent domain and its exercise are not enumerated in the Constitution, the power being inseparable from sovereignty and the right being the offspring of political necessity, must be recognized as existing. The right is one of these which is not denied, and being essential, is implied. Were the right to acquire property, and for other purposes, denied the United States, the unwillingness of property-holders to sell, or legislation by a State prohibiting a sale to the federal government would make nugatory the government itself, and its existence would thus depend upon the will of a State, or even upon that of a private citizen.[218] The essential matter here is of sovereignty, or jurisdiction. The two sovereignties, the several States and the United States, possess, each, this right commensurable with their respective jurisdictions. The proper view of the right of eminent domain seems to be, that it is a right belonging to a sovereignty to take private property for its own public uses, and not alone for those of another. Beyond that, there exists no necessity; which alone is the foundation of the right. If the United States have the power, it must be complete in itself. It can neither be enlarged nor diminished by a State.[219] CHAPTER VII THE LAW OF THE EXECUTIVE POWER