Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1852-03-20
The Wheeling Bridge Case.

a pdrtq-that Is. because of some asserted pro
perty interest of the State involved in the ISSUE
upon which ground alone she could maintain
her suit--bat i'll fact, with the design, under
the namc of the State, to find footing in the
Supreme Court upon which objects essentially
different mi INT be attained, and which are en-
tirely at war with the true spirit and meaning
of the Constitution, to wit: the vindication OF
the interests Of boat owners and others, private
individuals engaged in the navigation of the
Ohio river, and trading with her ports, and tho
repression on her own account, as sovereign
State, of an improvement rival with her own,
and from whose success an injurious and dread
ed competition may arise. We propose now
to show, that upon such a view of the case,
Pennsylvania has no standing in Court, under a
true Interpretation of the Constitution, and the
laws made in pursuance of it; and farther, that
the jurisdiction assumed by the Court over the
subject matter of the suit is ,cithoM the shadoao
Of legal foundation to support IT.; and more
that the bridge itself ordered to be abated as a
nuisance, is of great public benefit and utility.
But before advancing to these positions, we will
add few words upon the assumption of fact
upon which we shall erect the argument, in
order that no shadow of obscurity may be left
upon the premises of the demonstration we
shall attempt. We again assert then, that the
suit of Pennsy lvania is substantially a suit for
the assertion ofrights not her own, but belonging
to private individuals, who are themselves ca
pable of asserting those rights by suit-that is
to say, of the persons engaged in trade and navi-
CATION Oh the Ohio river, with her ports on that
river; and that farther than this, she has no in
terest in it other than the illegal and unconsti-
tutional object of depressing the rival improve
ments of sister State. We think this was
made apparent by the very statement of the
pleadings in tho case, which we have already
submitted. 1t is equally clear from the Ian
guage of the preamble to her resolution in ap-
proval Of this suit January, 1950,) in which
she alleges a reason for its prosecution,
"that steamboats, and other water crafts hitherto
accustomed to navigate said river, are hindered
in their passage to and from the port of Pits
burg, and other ports in the State of Pennsutua-
mia, and the trade, and commerce, and business
of this Commonwealth interrupted the revenue
of her public works diminished and impaired,
and steamboats, o1ened and nauigated by citi-
zens of THIS State, bound to and from her ports,
are subjected to labor, expense, and delay,
with hazard to life and property, by reason
phereofthe said bridges are common and pub
lie nuisance injurious to the State and her cit
xens. Now we suppose that the grounds of the
suit are stated in this resolution, in all their
length and breadth. Let US anayse them l.
Hindrance of persons and vessels navigating the
river to her ports. 2. Subsection of her citi-
zens and their vessels passing on the river to
labor delay, danger and expense. 3. Consequent
interruption to the trade and business of the
of tta g IL,
public works, lying within her limits. The last
item of enumeration is but consequential from
the two frst-which are the facts complained
of-to wit, hindrance of persons and vessels
coming to her ports by the river, and delay, ex-
pense and danger to her own citizens passing On
this river. But if such hindrance be ground
of State complaint, of what import is it by
what cause such hindrance is produced? Sup
pose band of Ohio or Virginia or Kentucky
boatmen were to interrupt and hinder the pas
sage of persons on the river going to Wheeling
and Allegheny, by assault on their persons, and
trespass on their vessels aud freight, whereby
fewer persons and goods were transported to
these cities, and thence along her RAILROADS.
should Pennsylvania, abdicating her power as a
sovereign to protect her citizens, humbly sue as
a State in the Supreme Court or. elsewhere,
for damages she had sustained thereby! Again,
to show how completely this is a private suit,
urged on State account, and that the craft and
steamboats, On the Ohio river were designed to
iniure the bridge, and not the bridge the steam
boats and craft take this significant fact, brought
out by the testimony, and stated by the Court.
Out of $50 boats which ply upon the river as
high as Pittsburg, but Seuen have their way inn
peded by the contact of their chimnies with the
bridge; and of these seven, all but one haze been
placed upon the riuer since the passage Of the act
Of 1547, authorizing the erection Of the bridge;
and, doubtless, that one placed on the river in
lS46, was introduced with full knowledge, on
the owners part, of the contemplated height of
the bridge, which had been already estimated
by the Engineers of the United States, at the
pitch at which it is actually constructed. Yet
the Court, with laudable innocence and free
dom from suspicion, are entirely satisfied, be-
cause the whole seven were placed on the river
''betore The first cables aOere dToaOn across" and
because Professors Renwick, Byrne and Locke
are learnedy of opinion that the greater speed
of boats is promoted by causing greater draft,
and that ''by lawof nature, the force or veloci-
ty of draft depends on the height of the CHM
ney - Again, several pages of the Courts
opinion are devoted to showing the injury in dol
lars and cents each individual navigator, by an
hours supposed detention by the bridge; and
the aggregate of INJURY sustained by all, sum-
med up with flourish OF hgures, while OF
the States interest IN the matter it is said-sit
is true the injury done to the State of Pennsyl-
vania may seem to be small''-(oae boat it is
said, landed her passengers at Wheeling who
went East by stage, by way of Cumberland
'when compared to the magnitude of this sub
ject. 1t applies to all our rivers, and affects an
nually transportation of many millions Of pas
sengers and commerce worth not less than six
hundred millions of dollars. 1t would be I'M
wise, as it is unlawful to fetter in any respect,
this vast commerce." So it is the 'srast com.
merce" Of the Ohio river, and not any particu-
lar interest of Pennsylvania, which the Court
here takes under its protection. Yet in this
view of the subject, the Chief Justice dissent
ing) says 1.-THE injury after two years expert
ence, has not been found serious enough to
lessen the navigation and commerce Of the rirer;
On. he contrary they hare BEEN continually in
ereasing since this fridge was built" While,