Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1852-03-24

vessels on the Ohio. But Congress has never
soughtto exercise that power. The States have
done so-Pennsylvania often as any-and
without pretence from any quarter that such
action on the part of the States is repugnant to
the Constitution and laws Of the United States.-
Virginia has done it in the present instance
Congress acquiesces. No law of that body then
confers the power here exercised by the Su-
preme Court. In the language of the Chief Jus
tice, sit is too near the confines Of legislation and
the Court ought not to assume it,
But, say the Court Virginia has agreed, and
Congress has assented lin the act by which Ken
lucky was erected into State,) THAT the use
and navigation of the river Ohio, faras the terri
tory of the proposed State or the territory which
shall remain within the limits of the Common
wealth lies thereon, shall be free and common to
the citizens of the United States" True: but,
answers the Chief Justice, and every tyro knows,
that 1.-The compact does not deprive Virginia of
the power to regulate the police of the river. or
to authorize bridges piers structures in it.
Such compact between States has always been
construed to mean nothing than that the
river shall be as free to the citizens subjects for
ach1ch the other party contracts as 1t as to the Cit
Gems or subjects of the State IN artca It is situa-
ted. But iftsis compact OR any compact, should
be construed prohibit the erection of the BRIDGE
the proceeding should be to enforce the observance
of the compact" But how eatorceit? By smt
in a Federal Court! Is that the proper resort for
redress for the violated faith of SOVEREIGN
States?
We have said the bridge was in no sense a nui-
sance, but an improvement of high public utility.
1t has injured no one who has not co,striued for
sinister purpose to be injured by it. 1t has been
shown, get to have inflicted no loss on Pennsyl-
yania. 1t is the expectation and dread of future
loss under which she smarts-oss of the legiti-
mate fruit of snccessfulrivalry in legitimate pur
suit, and therefore fit to be borne without repi-
ming, ifnot without regret. The erection of the
bridge has created great public facility, which
in its benefits to the public far exceeds any partial
and slight in this FANCIFUL) injury or incon-
venience which it may occasion to passengers
along the river, by the necessity to lower their
chimnies by easy contrivances, or to navigate
with chimneys of less heig ht. elbow is the
bridge injurious to the rights and interests of the
public or of individuals, beyond the benefits that
its erection confers both!" Common sense
and common lawdeclare that ssthat to pronounce
that to bea wrong and an injury which is really
beneficial. involves plain absurdity.'' Says the
distinguished Chief Justice Savage Of New York,
Il think I may safely say, that the power exists
somewhere to erect bridges waters which are
navigabe, if the wants of society require them,
provided such bridges donot essentially anjure the
navigation ofthe waters they cross. Such power
certainly did exist in the State Legislatures before
the delegation OF power to the Federal Govern
ment by the Federal Constitution. 1t is not pre-
tended that such power has been delegated to
the General Government, or is conveyed under the
power to regulate commerce and navi gation it
remains, then, IN the State Legislatures, it ex-
lists nowhere. 1t does exist, because it has not
been surrendered, any farther than such surren-
der may be qualifedly implied: that is, the pow
er to erect bridges navigable streams must
be so far surrendered as may be necessary for a
free naui cation upon those streams. By free
mari gat5on must not be understood a navigation
free from such partial obstacles and ampedaments
as the best interests Of society may render mecessa
ry.''
Here we leave the subject, but with a refec-
ton the occasion suggests upon the nature of
"Ihe Judicial Pouey'' in its practical workings,
in the system of restricted and delegated powers.
To contine the several departments of such sys-
tenn within their prescribed orbits; to repress the
tendencies to encroachment in each; to hold all
squarely and firmly up to the laws of their organ
izaton, is but to express, in more extended form
the idea of that watchfulness which is said to be
the price of all the liberty it confers The Judi
cial department is taniarly considered as the
weakest of the three into which free Constitution
is commonly distributed. The weakest, because
it can never be dggressiue 1t cannot make the
laws, nor execute them. Its province is to er-
pound them, no more. 1t must wait for TO
be made, before it can act. 1t can never, there
fore attempt an open and violent seizure upon the
rights of its co-ordinates. But do not its very
seeming weakness, its freedom from the appear
of danger; its unambitious aspect; its silent
action; and the easy habit with which the lovers
of order obey it; the revered forms with which it
is clothed the potential voice with which speaks
the voice of law is said to be, 'the harmony of
the universe'-present a sourse OF apprehension
from its insidous entertainments, not inferior to
the dread of more grasping usurpaton Again,
do the admirers of this useful and important
branch of our system see no cause of fear least
its attempts to exercise powers of doubtful char
acter may provoke, if not open resistance, least
arestive andquestioning spirit of opposition, which
may end in disarming it of that moral influence
which imparts to it. at once the influence of the l
arbiter and the Judge, and now makes alike its or
and its strength The recent Interference
of the Court with the health laaos of New York
(the first attempt of the General Government to
regulate the intercourse of the several States with
alien friends,) was received in amicabe spirit
The present case adds another to the catalogue of
maisaduentures, the part of the Court, which
f-iord of