The daily union., 1852-09-12

orabe speaks OF as bill 10 the decis-
ion OF the Supreme Court Sir, deny II utterly aad alb
soutey IL Is plain and apparent upon the lace OF the
bill that IL IS such thing What is the reversal Of the
Judgment OF court Ii is 10 declare, by superior tn
buna, that the law stood when the court pronounced
the judgment that judgment was erroneous, and upon
that ground should never have been pronounced Does
this propose any such thing No, sir IL assumes the
Judgment OF the court to be right and the first section OF
the amendment declares that il the Wheeling bridge
(which The court have pronounced 10 be nuisaneel
nuisance IN consequence OF anything contained in any
law or laws OF ihe United Staies tha law or those laws
shall be put out OF the way, and shall not be considered
affecting this bridge.
What does the second section OF the amendment pro-
pose' To make the bridge pest-road, public high.
way; and then in the next place. directs that vessels
navigating that stream shall regulate their smoke pipes
IN such manner as not to interfere with this bridge
Will any gentleman undertake tell me what pari of
this undertakes 10 the decision OF the Supreme
Court II is just this case Suppose Judgment had
been rendered in the courts OF the United States award
ing a certain of money TO the United States, and
directing that the money should be paid next February
could not pass act releasing that debit IL would
prevent the execution OF the Judgment because as the
owners release the debt But does II the udg
ments So here do we undertake 10 say that the judg
ment wrong when it was delivered Not at all. Bat
we say this- the judgment was right in consequence
OF any law OF ours them far as this bridge concern
ed, repeal the law. Now ii the honorable senator
perceive the difference between this and reversing
the Judgment am very cory for II, but cannot help
appears 10 that the distraction is perfectly PLAIN
there be anything in the beyond the law OF Con-
gressif there be anything, as the senator says, in
compact in virtue OF which the bridge is nuisance, and
must be put downwhy, the high tribunal which has this
before WILL upon application, so decide, and tue
bridge must 90 down. But assume no jurisdiction or
control over that We only assume Jurisdiction alter
our own laws Then the whole matter is reduced TO
this is it expedent' Shall that noble structure go
DOWN. Shall steamboats,, out OF the three hundred
and fifty navigating the Ohio be put TO The trouble OF re-
ducng their smokeppes five six feet 10 be able
10 pass under the bridge That is the question OF expe
diency.
/ vain North Carolina. Ile
Supreme Court OF the United States has decided that this
bridge is nuisance injurious to the rights OF the c
clare that lawful structure which the Supreme Court
has decided 10 be nuisance, and injurious to the c
zens OF Pennsylvania,
far as the laws of the United States concerned.
! Mr.. BRODHEAD. The Supreme Court Of the United
States has declared the bridge 10 be nuisance injurious
TO the rights OF the citizens OF Pennsylvanla, and you
say that the rights OF the citizens OF Pennsylvania shall
be invaded by this bridge; that our people shall not
have the right 10 the free navigation Of the Ohio river
The Supreme Court has said that the free navigation OF
the river has been interrupted, and now propose TO
declare that this nuisance notwithstanding inter-
Iuption shall be esal structure. That is the question
1t is delicate question, arising between States.
think that month al the opening OF the next ses-
sion will be sufficient 10 decide this matter The gen.
ileman from North Carolina agrees with me that the
judgment of the court cannot be carried into effect and
execution had thereon until February next. We shall
then have, al the next session. two months TO consider
the bill which has been sent to from the House.
think that the Senate OF the United States will consider
il question Of sufficient importance to dispose OF il in
the month of December or January. But do not wish
TO dean The Senate at this late hour by any further re-
marks.
MI MASON must ask the Senate 10 indulge me
but very few momenls-not to add anything 10 what
has fallen from the honorable senator from North Caro-
liza, who is member OF the Judiciary Committee; for
he has placed the legal question in clearer light than
could. He has shown what every senator knows, and
what the senator from Pennsylvania knows, that the
judiciary cannot egisate They to expound the
lsting laws. and nothing more AS the senaios rom
North Carolina says, they have exponnded the existing
sting law, this bridge Is nuisance Do we attempt 10
reverse that Judgment Certainly not But we do
SLY that, If it be under existing laws, those
laws shall be removed out OF the ways and that is all
4 the amendment declares.
4 l wish to say word about the true history OF
country. This difficulty had its origin in wre,ched
competition between the city Of Ptsburg and those who
navigate the Ohio river below Wheeling. That was the
whole of it, The fact was demonstrated over and over
again, that the smoke chmneys OF the Psburg steam.
Il boals were elevated IN order 10 come into collision
with that bridge That has nothing 10 do with the ques-
ton before the Senate, admit; but il 10 fact they were
elevated foot by loot, in order 10 come into collision
with that bridge. That has nothing do with the ques.
lion before the Senate, admit; but such was the fact
AT the instance OF the city OF Plltsburg the State OF
Pennsylvania requested that these proceedings should be
| ludcially instituted
terrupt him. He rays that these chmneys ele.
waited Tor the purpose OF coming into collision with this
bridge.
l blr. MASON. L es, SIR
Mr. BRODHEAD Now. will read what the Su.
preme Court decided upon that point:
''7 The packet chimneys were as high as they are
before the the bridge Chimneys OF equal and
greater height used the and the best
packets Of the eastern waters the lakes, and the Mss
sippl."
| Mr. MASON The Supreme Court took that from evil
dence gotten up by this extraordinary organization. That
evidence taken for the Supreme Court by Chancellor
Wslworth, OF New York But the fact was, and yet re-
mans that there but two boats pretending to be Of
that eight when the structure commenced and Its
elevation ascerained but by the time the bridge
completed OF those boats got very high chin
neys do not mean, however. to 60 into that subject
because am not of those who would undertake by
legislation to the judgment OF a court But
wish call attention 10 the fact that here rs the State OF
Pennsylva complaining through its senator OF this
bridge. when has bridge at Psburg, and above Pitts
burg the Aeybapy rivera river that runs up into
The State OF New York II has bridge the Mo.
nongahela, river that through Virginia and the
boats navigating every day IN the year lower their
chimneys pass under Pennsylvania bridges. Yet un-
der this wreiched competition OF the city OF Ptsburg
would deny substantially all communication across the
waters of the Ohio, in order that it might flourish That
is the whole matter.
Mr.. BROOKE. In all legal questions, am willing,
and than willing, 10 yield TO the authority OF the
Supreme Court; but IN questions OF fac conceive that
a member OF the Congress o the United States, have
the right OF judgment, humble as am, as the Su.
preme Court has As an individual upon the testimony
which have read in this case, have the con-
clusion that the steamboats, navigating the Ohio river
have elevated their chimneys 10 unnecessary height
for the purpose oil destroying this structure-as
ceve, one of the nobest srsctures in the werld and
will do everything can as legislator, to nullify II