Cooper's Clarksburg register. [volume] (Clarksburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1851-1861, 1852-02-25
For the Recister.
Wheeling Bridge CONSOLIDATION Of
the Supreme Court.---Means of still
Snsfainin. the Isridse.

-.
Ma. CooPER In common with the cit
liens of this portion of the State general
w. i have taken great interest in the case
recently pending in the supreme Court q
the United States, involving the Perma-
nency Of the great Suspension Bridge
across the Ohio river at the city of Vince
ling, at its present elevation, and have
attentively observed its progress, and
waited its final determination and II is
with profound regret. and will add with
great surprise, that / have seen the deci-
sion of the court, as given in the newspa-
pers, so adverse to the interests OF Inc
bridge company, and as-I think, OF the
public Nat large, and so contrary to the ex-
pectations L had formed as to the result
The effect of the decision as gwen IS,
that the bridge,--that noble structure.
the pride and ornament of the city OF
Wheeling, and signal monument of the
public spirit, enterprise and good taste OF
her citizens,-is ''pu6lic nuisance" and
as such, must be abated or demolished,
unless the obstruction which it is sup
posed to offer TO the navigation of the river,
be removed by further elevation of 10
feet above its present height, with span
of 800 feet.
1t would be difficult. perhaps imPossi-
BILE, to understand or appreciate the pro-
cess of reasoning by which the court was
brought to this conclusion. without seeing
the decree at length, or the opinions OF
the Judges who concurrcd in its rendition,
But it may be safely assumed that the
ground upon which the jurisdiction of the
court was maintained, and the reliefgran-
ted, made to rest, was that the Ohio river
is such public highway that the courts
of the United States have jurisdiction to
prevent and remove what might be con-
sidered an obstruction to its full and free
navigation. Conceding for the sake of
the argument that this proposition is as
true as it certainly is novel and fraught
with results, all of which it may be diff
cult at this time exactly to foresee or an
ticipate, it yet remains to be seen how
this magnificent work, Offering such stri-
king facilities to social, commercial, and
governmental arrangements throughout
the country, itself an important link in
the chain of improvements constituting
the great highway of the nation which
crosses the Ohio river at that point, can
be held to be nuisance because ofits in
reference at a certain stage of high wa
ter with the free passage Of some six or
seven boats, (of the many hundreds that
navigate that river, with smoke pipes, as
many think, Of unnecessary and prcpos-
ferrous height or how it could be unrea-
sonable to hold that the owners of the
few boats that run, or may hereafter
choose to indulge in such extraordinary
heights of chimneys, should, in consldc-
ration of the immense public benefit oil
the bridge and of its exemption at its
presen: elevation from any just complaint
of offering obstruction to the ordinary nav
igation of the river, be required to have
their chimney tops adjusted with hinges
or some similar contrivancc so as to be
able to lower them while passing under
the bridge. The process of lowering the
chimney tops could scarcely be attended
with any such risk or expense as to rem
der it inadmissible, considering the great
public interests at stake in the question:
And where is the principle asserted iii
this case to stop? Suppose the bridge
shall be raised to the required additional
elevation, and the people of Pittsburg, in
fluenced by whatever motives, shall think
proper to construct half dozen new
boats with pipes of such enormous and
disproportionate heights, as, at certain
stages of the water, to be obstructcd in
their transit by bridge, even of ono
hundred and eleven feet in height, and oil
the required span. Shall the jurisdiction
of the courts of the United States be again
invoked, and the bridge even at its in,
creased elevation, be declared public
nuisance" by reason Of such obstruction
1t may be said that the decree in this case
between the State of Pennsylvania and
the bridge company asccrtains that the
bridge at the height of one hundred and
ele ven feet is no nuisance, and is cOnclu-
sive. And so, perhaps, il may be, Get,oeen
tie parties to that case but the party COM
planning of the alleged nuisance need not,
and probably would not, be the State of
Pennsylvania. The boats might be built
on Cincinnati account, and it might be the
State of Ohio or some other State than
Pennsylvania by which the proceeding
might be instituted.
In this brief comment upon the decree
fthe court in this case, hope it is not
necessary l should say that do not
mean, directly or by implication, in the
slightest degree, to impugn the motives,
or question the perfect impartialty of the
distinguished judges in conformity to
whose opinion it was rendered. Very far
from it indeed. That opinion was un-
doubleday the result of their honest con-
victions, and most mature deliberations.
No one will for a moment think Of ques-
tioning the perfect purity and uprightness
of those judges, however much he may
doubt the wisdom and soundness Of the
decreee in which they have concurred. -
But that these may be drawn into qucs.
ton and discussion without subjecting the