The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-03-01

sion in the public press. Contracts were
entered into for the bridge and in the
course of the year 1913 large portion of
the masonry was erected for the abut-
ments and towers, and considerable pro-
gress made in preparing the superstruc-
ture. In the spring and early summer of
l849 the work advanced rapidly the iron
cables which were to be thrown across
the river, forming span of more than
one thousand feet, were completed, and
almost the entire superstructure was ready
to be fitted together and placed in its pro-
per position at cost of $4,000.
In this state of affairs, application, in be-
half of the State of Pennsylvania, was
made to Mr.. Justice GRIER, at the court
room of the Circuit Court of the United
States in the city of Philadelphia, by
bill praying for an injunction to restrain
the company from constructing their
bridge. The bill alleged that the Ohio
was navigable river and common high
way, free to the citizens Of Pennsylva-
mia and other citizens of the United
States and that the defendants were
about to erect bridge over the Ohio
river, one hundred miles below Pittsburg,
which would obstruct the navigation,
and prevent the passage of the citizens of
Pennsylvania along said river with their
steamboats,, and interrupt their commerce,
to the great damage and common nui-
sance of said citizens.
The bill stated that steamboats, are accus-
toned to navigate the Ohio which require
space Of eighty feet above the water sur
face, sand that the flood of 1882 was
forty-four and half feet above the low
water level; that ordinary spring floods
are thirty -fve feet above that level, and
that the bridge was to be only ninety
three and half feet above low-water
level at its eastern end, and sixty-two
8 feet at the western end" Amended
and supplemental bills were filed at the
same time and place, stating the interests
of Pennsylvania in her public improve
ments, and the damage that the State
would sustain from the obstruction of the
navigation Of the Ohio by the proposed
bridge; and praying for an injunction,
abatement, and general relief
The defendants answered and demurred
to the bill on various grounds, denying the
jurisdiction of the United States Court,
denying the right of Pennsylvania to insti-
tute the suit, and denying that the bridge is
any obstruction to the navigation, or will do
any injury to the citizens of Pennsylvania.
Affidavits were produced on both sides,
and Mr.. Justice GRIER refused to grant
the injunction, and ordered that the bills,
answers and exhibits be filed in the Clerks
Office of the Supreme Court of the United
States, and that the complainant have
leave to move for an injunction on the
first day of the term then next ensuing.
In obedience to this order, the Bridge
Company filed an answer to the supple
mental bill, reitcrating tho grounds of de-
fence taken in their first answer, and sug-
costing additional grounds.
GA supplemental answer has since been
filed, stating that since the institution of
this proceeding the Legislature of Vir-
ginia has passed law explanatory Of
the charter of the Wheeling and Bel
mont Bridge Company, and recognising
in substance the present bridge as having
9 been constructed in conformity with the
charter"
The motion for an injunction came on
for argument on Monday last, and was
opened by Mr.. DARRAGH, the attorney
general of Pennsylvania, and Mr.. Z. M.
STANTON for the complainant Mr.. A. H.
H. STUART and Mr.. REvERDY JOHNSON
appeared in opposition to the motion, on
the part of the Bridge Company; and the
argument in behalf of the application was
closed by Mr.. WALKER. The case has
excited great interest from the magnitude
of the interests involved, and the charac-
ter Of one Of the parties, as well as from
the eminence of the counsel engaged II
has been argued on both sides with con-
summate ability, and the decision Of the
court will be looked for with great solicit
tude.