Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1852-09-25


soothing, however, TO the national pride of Virginia
that they should seem to drive their pow6 rs from
Virginia herself. They look into her own lcSiSla-
ton find authority to PROSTATE her rights ana her
sovereignty They approach her with great snow
of respect when the Joab- stroke is to be given.
But, sir, what must be thought when tell you that
this very compact with Kentucky expressly stpuiat-
ed that any differences that might grow out oil IL
should be settled by commissioners selected by
themselves.
The next reason they assign is, that Virginia, IN
the charter, authorizing the erection of the BRIDGE
clared that it should be treated and abatcd as
public nuisance, If it should be so erected as TO oD
struct the navingaton of the river. Here AGAIN,
YOU find they deal n blow al the interests and hon.
or of Virginia, and plead her own authority for the
act Poor Nirginial Like Esop's unhappy oak,
! her own branches are made to supply the handle to
the axe, by which she is teled to the ground.-
They pay 10 regard, however. TO the fact that thls
very Commonwealth of Virginia, from which they
seek authority PROSTATE this structure, has since
its completion passed an act expressly declaring
that ii is not an obstruction to navigation, and HAT
it Should be preserved and maintained at us pres
cnt elevation. L.,
Upon these grounds and fol- these reasons, they
undertake to declare-whatl That this bridge is
n public nuisance! Do they undertake to decide
that the bridge is public nuisancei No, Sir, ana
| challenge the Representatives OF pennsylvania
many of whom, as the House knows, possess distn-
gulshed ability as lawyers to reply to me on tins
| point. ...L-" r.
L
not before the Court at all; say that they never
have decided that bridge to bc-n pubic nuisance
and that they dare not SO, although some one by
whose authority cannot understand to say has, III
| the printed annoatons explaining The poln'S
adiudged, declared that the Wheeling bridge was
decided to be serious obStructionn to the naviga-
ton of the Ohio river and public nuisance. The
| Court themselves admit That they have no JurlSdic-
| ton over the question Of public nuisance. quote
! from their opinion what they say upon that point
"An Indictment at common law could not be
sustained in the Federal Courts, by the United
States, against the bridge rs nuisance, as no such
| procedure has been authorized by Congress- but
proceeding on the ground Of a private and an II
/ rcparablc injury may be sustStancd against 1t by
an individual or corporation.o
Here, then, they take jurisdiction OF this case as
a sui. by n private for a private njuy. They re-
pudiatc any other gtonnd of jurisdiction. 1t is
rue they did, i'll their decree, undertake 10 adJudgc
the bridge to be liuisancc, but not a public nul-
Suicc, and they admit that point never was before
| them. The case before them no more involved the
question of public nuisance than would a contro-
| ycrsy between coeriinous propnctols, about an
injury done to tile dwelling Of one by the improper
construction of the house of the other; or suit i'll
which party complained that the other had OBJ
! s,ructed his ancient lights. The Court would hold
jurisdiction such complaints as these; but the
! question is OF private injury and not OF puDhc
| mi ancc, and the Court dare not 90 beyond the
case submitted to tien and decide what Is or hot
public nuisance.
1t must be confessed, however, Mr.. Speaker, that
the language used by the Court upon this subject
is somewhat disngenuouS. They do not venture to
| claim jurisdiction over the offence OF pubic nusan
&C in q State, but what they say is calculated to
make an impression that they have 1t. They tell
us .tl!at an Indictment at common law could not
be sustained in the Federal Courts, by the United
States, against the bridge us nuisance" Why!
l-..as no SUI CHI procedure has been, authorized by
| Congrvss!' They do not tell u.s. Ill frank and
candid way, that they have no jurisdiction over
tie offence OF nuisance. They do not tell us that
the reason why an indictment cannot be sustained
is that so far as the United States are concerned,
the crime does not exist But they would perhaps
have us to suppose that they have full jurisdiction
over the offence of nuisance; but that by the laws
of the United States, this particular mode OF pro,
ccdurc by Indictment is not authorized. AS wei!
might they say, if a person were brought before
them charged with heresy or blaspheny, that an
indictment at common law could not be sustained
against him in the Federal Courts, as no such pro
cedurc had been authorized by law; leaving You
under the IMPRESSION however, that they had full
jurisdiction the crime Of hercsy or blasphemy,
but not III that particular form. Now, sir, | say
they had 10 more jurisdiction over The offence OF
nuisance, in the absence of any law creating II,
than they would have over the supposed offence oil
hereSy.
Mr. Speaker, there is perhaps no constituency
in tie United States, who have less PRACTICAL m
tcrcSt in the determination OF tins case, tnaI inc
one have the honor TO represent. My district IS
more remote from the Wheeling bridge than any
other i'll the State, and it has literally no com
Imcrcal intercourse WIFI that VI
then from no prompting OF local feeling or interest.
| come forward to defend the rights OF the Com
uonvealth of Virginia and the rights OF the whole
commercial public, for both assaulted by the de-
cree of the Supreme, Court. have risen TO lend
lmy humble efforts 10 save, from threatened de-
strnction, this beautiful cdifcc which does honor,
not only to the genius Of its distinguished architect
ana to III: public spirit of the people of hccrg,
bat to the country itself. Let it not be supposed,
however, that, in the view l make OF the relative
powers Of this Government and OF the States, con-
slider that any action of ours can, either add to or
impair the original authority derived from Virginia
10 maintain tins structure. The bill before us
simply gives consent to its continuance. There Is
10 assumption of power in giving our consent 10
r what State has already done of her own ampie
authority, and which, in my view, would, without
such consent, have the same validity. can Then
cnecrfully act with those who think that rallca-
ton by this Government, of the act OF Virginia is
necessary. 1t cannot Justly be drawn into inlurl-
Gus precedent, for there wide difference between
approving and consenting TO the lawful action OF
the State and the attempt to abrogaea annul It,
Such ratification is not without example Ill the
legis lation of Congress. The quarantine reguia-
r0ns of the various States though they derive their
validity solely from their legislation, have yet
been expressly sanctioned by Congress, and tlrec.
tons have been given to the officers of this Govern
ment, by n general act, TO respect and observe
them. Such i'll effect, will be the operation o: ths
bill! now before us. .u...- F-.s .a..-.-
/ PARIGRAFHICAL.