Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1852-03-18
TIE Wbeeling Bridge Case.

secondarily involved in this controversy-the
deep and general interest of the subJect-no less
than the novelty of the question involvedin it,
seem to carry it fairly beyond the province of
the mere lawyer, into the legitimate domain OF
the political journalist. No apology, therefore
is needed, or will be offered for statement of
its facts and principles, sufficiently extended to
place the case, in its generalaspects, in the pos
session of our readers.
: By an act of the Virginia Legislature, passed
March 10th, 1647, revising and amending
previous acts authorizing the election of a toll
bridge over the Ohio river at Wheeling, the
Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company were
empowered to erect and keep wire suspension
toll bridge on and from Zane's Island to and
upon the main Virginia shore or bank, at the
city of Wheeling. The same Company had
previously erected bridge from Zane's Island
to the Ohio side of the river. But the shares
in the company and in the bridge they had erec-
ted seem to have been merged in the new or
ganization contemplated by the act OF l847, to
the success of which not only the old corpora
tors and individuals, but the city OF Wheeling
and the State Banks located there, were autho
rized to contribute by the purchase of stock
Considered as a necessary improvement of
great national highway and thoroughtare across
the Ohio river at that place, it seems to have
risen in the regard of the Legislature, from the
rank of improvement merely local, to the dig
nifty of State or national interest scarcely in
ferior to that of the navigation of the river it.
self. But careful least it should interfere with
the right of navigation of the river guaranteed
TO other States. it was provided by the 18th
"section of the act, that should the bridge be
erected in such a manner as to obstruct the ma
vigation in the usual manner by such steam
boats and other crafts as are now commonly &C
customed to navigate the same when the river
shall be as high as the highest floods therein
heretofore KNOWN then upon such obstruc-
tons being found to exist, if such obstruction
shall not be Immediately removed or remedied,
''the last mentioned bridge may be treated as a
public nuisance, and dbated accordlngty."
PENNSYLVANIA, it is known, has erected, at
great cost, lines of improvement, by canal and
railway owned by herself, having their termaaa
on the Ohio river at points above Wheeling
and depending for their success, upon the trans
portation of passengers and goods, which reach
them by the river. The prosperity of Pitts
burg, Allegheny, and other cities Gncludlng
Philadelphia which is reached by continuous
line of railway and canal, extending about 400
miles from the Ohio) is largely dependant on
the trade of the river; and it was natural that
the State should view with jealousy any coupe
tition which threatened, however remotely, to
withdraw or impair that source OF revenue and
wealth. She readily took alarm at the thought
that trade SO valuable might be thereby di-
verted to Northern route through New Y DIRK,
or to a more Southern one; and that the numer-
Gus lines of railroad pervading the State OF Ohio,
between the river and the lakes for the Eastern
termini, of which Wheeling and Pittsburg are
competing, might be attracted to a conveyance
at the former place by this new improvement
In July, 1s49, Pennsylvania, by her Attorney
General, filed her bill in the Supreme Court of
the United States, complaining that the Bridge
Company ssunder color of an act OF the Leglsla-
ture of Virginia, but in direct violation OF
its terms,'' were constructing their bridge SO
as to obstruct the navigation in such manner
as to divert the trade and business from the pub
III NoihS Vi OuIiSJ Noiiio3 iLPohh oi'A
the tolls and revenue of the State, and render
its Improvements useless. An injunction was
prayed against the erection of the Bridge as
nuisance. In August, 1849, supplemental bill
was filed, stating that after notice the defendants
still engaged in stretching iron cables across
the channel of the river, which would obstruct its
navigation and it prayed that these cables might
he +l,o
further stated that the defendants had completed
their Bridge, that it INSTRUCTED the passage of
steamships and sea-going vessels, which were
accustomed to be constructed at the ports OF
Pennsylvania, and would impair and destroy the
trade and business of ship and boat building
which was carried on at Pittsburg and an abate-
ment was asked of the bridge as nuisance
In defence, the company relied on the erclusiUe
sovereignty Of Virginia ouer the Ohio riuer, and
set forth the act authorizing the erection of the
bridge; insisted that the Courts of Virginia
were open for relief that Pennsylvania had no
corporate capacity to sue IN the Supreme Court TO
rindicate the rights Of her citizens; that she IS
only q nominal party aohose name is improperly
atssd By individuals; that the bridge is the con-
Meeting link of great public high way, as i'm
portant as the navigation of the river; that Penn
sylvania has set the example of authorizing
bridges across the Ohio; that Engineers of the q.
S. had recommended wire suspension bridge
at Wheeling and gave as their opinion, ''that by
an elevation of 80 feet, every imaginable danger
of obstructing the navigation would be avoided;''
that reports of Committees of Congress had re-
cognized the necessity of bridge at Wheeling
and recommended an appropriation for that pur
pose; that the Roadway for steamers left by
the bridge is amply sufficient, forty -seven feet
above the water) for all useful purposes, and ii
sufficient draft cannnt be had at that noint