A buried legal definition let officials seize land without paying first.

Evidence

In 1924, “appropriation” had only one meaning in a legislative context: an allocation of funds by the Legislature. Most legislators—probably all legislators—would, if asked, have said that was the only meaning the word had ever had. And since section fifty-nine of the conservation law had been passed in 1884, most legislators had not read it. But the best bill drafter in Albany had read it—and he knew that in that section “appropriation” had quite a different meaning. 
 Worried in 1883 about incursions by lumbering companies into the Adirondack forests, the Legislature empowered the Conservation Commission to condemn the forests and preserve them. But during that year, between the start of the condemnation proceedings and the actual transfer of title, the lumbermen stripped the parcels being condemned of their trees. In 1884, therefore, the Legislature passed an act—section fifty-nine of the conservation law—empowering the state to “appropriate” forest lands and defining “appropriation” as a procedure in which a state official could take possession of the land by simply walking on it and telling the owner he no longer owned it—and that if he wanted compensation, he would have to apply to the condemnation commission himself. — Robert A. Caro, The Power Broker, 774

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Explains how ‘appropriation’ historically meant something wholly different from its common legislative meaning.
  • XREF: Resonates with how colonial states used obscure statutes to seize land and resource wealth. — connects to: Legal doctrine rationalized land theft rather than hiding it. — Dorothy A. Brown, Getting to Reparations: How Building a
, 150; Settlement of occupied land often begins with a mundane bureaucratic pretext

Broader Connections