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

- sS SS.NAi.AiJ
|
THE WHEELING BRIDGE CASE.
We have endeavorsd to show that there was no
case existing in this instance. to which Pennsyl-
sylvania as a State, could within the meaning of
the Constitution, be party. Two enquiries re-
main. Surprising the bridge to be public nui-
sance, which inflicted upon that State peculiar
private injury flor such is the only ground on
which Court of Equity can interfere by injunc-
ton, at the suit of an individual to abate it) by
qohat laaedid the Federal Court assume the autho-
rity to abate it! And again, was the bridge
nuisance at ALL to the public to any one, in any
sense?
Upon the first point, it is obvious at glance that
the Federal Court in this instance wis exercising
no jurisdiction derived from the lac of Virginia,
whether legal or equitable. For nothing declared
by the law of the State to be laaetl, can, by the
authority of that law be deemed unlawtul. The
law of Virginia authorized the erection of this
bridge; the power to abate it, therefore, be de-
rived from some other This was conceded
by the Supreme Court itself. From what source,
thea Not from the common lac, for nothing is
more clearly established, and has been from the
States, than, that there is no common law of the
United States considered as source of jurisdic-
ton, or, in the language Of the Court that s.there
is no pevading principle of the common law of
the Union under which we can take jurisdiction"
The common law powers exercised by the fede-
raj Courts within the limits of State are derived
from the common laao Of the State, adopted and
modified by its Legislature. But in this case, as
has been already stated, the Legislature of Vir-
ginia has declared the bridge lawful Upon what
reasons, then, does the judgme of the Court re-
pose They are numerous, seemingly, with the
design that they shall make up in number what
they want in weight. First, the bold and extra
VACANT pretension is put forth that, 'under th.
system" (the Judicial system of the United States)
'swhere relief can be given by the English chan
Gerry, similar relief may be given by the Courts of
the Union'' Such is the language of the SUI
preme Court with the avowal on its lips that
the common law of England is not, as a source of
jurisdiction, the law of the Union, it yet declares
that the equity system of that country, which is
but part of the common law in its larger mean
ing, may be administered by the .Courts of the
Union.'' It were difficult to treat such dogma
as aught but mere puerility, but for the source
from which it springs, and the tremendous conse-
quences which must flow from the successful as
sertion of pretension so extravagant. If there
be any attempt at constructive usurpation on
the part of the federal government more daring
than this, we are not acquainted with it. With
out wearying the general reader with disser-
tation upon the nature and extent of this English
ity and nf do
which its adoption as the law of the Union, indie
pendentofthe Jurisprudence ofthe separate States,
would confer, suffice it to say that it is the main
of kingly authority; the origin of these flow
ers of prerogatiye which, springing from the bosom
of an imperial system, would wither before the
sterner genius ofthe old commonlaw proper.which
originated Magma Charta and the Bill of Ri hts.
Give to the Supreme Court of the United States
the powers which that system confers under the
titles q Plpresture and nuisance alone, exercised
in the name Of the Attorney General, or promoted
by State an individual, and there is scarcely
a limit TO Winch the authority Of the federal
Courts may not be extended over the internal af-
fairs of the States of this Union. And whence
is this sweeping power derived From what
source is license obtained to exercise the equity
system within the limits of the States with a
wider reach than the other parts of the common
law The Constitution declares that: ''Ihe ju-
dicial power shall extend to all cases in law and
equity arising under this Constitutions the laws of
the United States, and treaties made or which
shall be made under its authority and by an
early law of the United States the laws of the
States were made the rule of decision of the
Courts of the United States when sitting in the
State. And thus, the law and equity system of
the State, is adopted and enforced by the law of
Congress within the limits of the State, where
made IN pursuance of it. Whence, them is de-
rived this pretension to administer, within our IL
mits the ''relief given by the English Chance
ry!"
Another ground of jurisdiction assumed by the
Court is The power bestowed on Congress to 're-
gulate commerce" on the nayigable streams
within the United States, and that Congress has
exercised this power on the Ohio river by estab-
fishing ports and providing regulations for licen-
ses, and for the safety of passengers and cargoes
Therefore, it is argued, he Court may exercise
the power of regulating the heights Of bridges
across it, and of steamboat chimnies that pass
alongit A more glaring and ridiculous sophism
never perplexed learned wig. The legisla-
tive power to regulate commerce on the Ohio lay
silent and inactive in the text Of the Constitution