Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1852-09-24

vent any interference with tile police which the
riparian States might exercise Similar regulations
respecting the free navigation of the Elbe were
established among the States bordering on that rr-
er, in 1921 and it was only as recently as 1s4O,
that treatylwas made between Russia and Aus
tria, securing to the contracting parties the free
navigation of the Danube. IS
Thera was, then, Mr. Speaker, such right,
under hegeneral law of nation, as that commended
for by my friend from South Carolina, except as
an imperfect one, the exercise of which could not
be insisted upon, and which,>if conceded ut all,
mus: be enjoyed in such way as would not be IN
furious to the party making the concession. At
the adoption of the Constitution, the State OF Viz
gnas had exclusive jurisdiction over the whole ol
the Ohio river, from the Pennsylvania line to the
Mississippi Fltran entirely within her territory
When she ceded the Northwestern country, she
gave up no part OF the river. What she conveyed
was, theicointry Northwestern the Ohio river, but
the river itself remained within her limits and be-
came the southeastern boundary of this territory.
This was held by Judge Marshall-if indeed, so
plain proposition requires any extrinsic support
in the case of .Handleys lessee VS.. Anthony, in
the Supreme Court. He says:
"She (Virginia) conveys to Congress all her
right the territory situate, lying and being to the
north west of the river Ohio.
"When a great river is the boundary between
two nations States, il the original property is in
neither and there be no convention respecting it,
each holds TO the middle of the stream; but when,
as in this case State is the original proprietor
and grants the territory, on one side only it retains
the river within its own domain and the newly
created State extends TO the river only The river
however, rs its boundary.'ssr ~ GEErk1
'ly Mr., LOCKHART. With the permission Of the
gentleman from Virginia, l wish to state that, in
the case of Handleys lessee ps. Anthony, towhich
he refers, the question Of State boundary was not
discussed. The only question presented to the
Court, for its consideration, was whether thirty
six thousand acres of land situate lying and being
to the northwest of the Ohio, and lying within the
county in which reside, was in Kentucky or In
diana. The lawyers, in that case, conceded that
if the land in controversy was an island, it was in
Kentucky; if not an island, it in Indiana.
From This statement, it will be seen that what
Judge Marshall says, in relation 10 the boundary
between the States of kentucky and Indiana is
cutit!cd to the consideration of a judicial dec-
sion; that it is only the oter dcta udgc who
delivered the opinion and is not authority judicial
ly pronounced upon the important question of
boundary. Di4 d -s......-t . I b.
Mr. NILSSON. I know perfectly well what was
the point in dispute. The interruption of NY friend,
if lie will excuse me, was altogether unnecessary.
The question: WAS, whether that land lay i'll Ken
lucky whiclwas once part of Virginia, OF not.
| The Court held that, inasmuch as it was portion
OF the north west shore, it was not part of Ken
lucky; and decided that the territory of Virginia and
Kentucky extended to the south east of your north
" cIs;ern territory, and embraced the whole of the
Ohio river, The gentleman will not differ with me
| about that. The point decided was directly i'll
| issue. 80 a p - ~ -E4gt 'LLLlet'l'r
| have shown that Virginia had exclusive juris-
diction over the OHIO river at the time of the adop
ton of the Constitution. i say at the time Of the
Constitution, because do not understand my friend
from South Carolina Mr.. Woodward as concnd-
ing that the ordinance OF 1871 vested III the Federal
Government any control the Ohio river at all;
although, perhaps. some erroneous impressions may
| be drawn from what he said upon the subject
! ,sMr.5 WOODWARD, No, sir, it is mentioned in
the ordinance. 80 a.
Mr.. NILSSON. The ordinance speaks of the
riyin int the MiSsSSinni and into the
ST. Lawrence, and applied exclusively to rivers
| lying within the territory coded. The Congress
of the Confederation had not authority 10 claim
jurisdiction the Ohio river, which lay wholly
within the limits Of the State Of Virginia. l say
| this by way of answer to the argument OF the gen
temcn from z ennsylvania [Mr. Thomas i. Howell
who seemed 10 think that, by the ordinance OF
1887, some control over the Ohio river has berii
| granted 10 Congress. repeat then, that the sole
| jurisdiction over this river in the State OF
Virginia, at the time of the adoption OF the Con
stitution. If it was then, it is now, unless theie
be something in the Constitution by which it has
been surrendered. | maintain that no such sur
| render was made or was intended 10 be made.
| And here again differ with the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Woodward. He thinks that
this control over the Ohio river was surrendered in
that clause of the Constitution which gave to Con-
gress the power to regulate commerce. Thercisno
other clause in the Constitution which can be sup
posed to have taken away this control OF the State
OF Virginia; and if she has lost at ALL grant 1t
| from South Carolina. This power, which is sup
posed lie be in conflict with the original right e
Virginia, granted to the Congress ofthe United
| States and not TO the Supreme Court.
4 r EXTRAORDINARILY. wish TO make single
| observation. | never said that the ordinance APP
piled to the Ohio river expressly ltapplicd TO the
afiuents OF that river, which implied that the river
was as free as the aluents. ullara -lu.s-g.g. d.
| Mr.. MlLLSON. so understand the gentlemen
| from South Carolina. 1t was with the view of en-
aiding to set himself right upon the subject that
that erroneous differences might be drawn as to his
| III Gaming. rI.
The clause in the Constitution which authorizes
| Congress to regulate commerce among the States,
| is the one relied on by the gentleman from South
Carolina, as dvcstng Virginia of her original con-
| troll over the Ohio river. He says it includes the
pow er to regulate navigation. Perhaps it does
Judge Marshall, in delivering the opinion OF the
court in Gibbons ps Ogden, held that tie power to
regulate commerce embraces the power TO regulate
| navigation, and said that "if commerce did not IN
cIude navigation the Government of the Union
had no direct power over that subject" 1t will
be seen, hewever, that the powerto regulate navi-
CATION has never been expressly granted, andis, at
this implied power to regulate navigation others
are implied, and others again from these so that
almost lose sight of the original grant OF power
| The morning hour here expired.
| .rF MONDAY, AUGUST 16. 1852.
| Mr.. MILLSON resumed and concluded his
| marks, as follows:
| Mr.. Speaker Ihave shown that at the adoption
of the Constitution, no other State than Virginia
had any control jurisdiction over the Ohio river
and proceed to inquire how far the implied power