Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1852-09-25
SPEECH
WHEELING BRIDGE CASE.
DeGpered in the House Of Representatives., Au-
rust 18th. 1852. "a "
of thc
Hon. j. S. MILLsON, of Virginia,

Mr.. S1ILLsoN. allude of course to obstruc-
tions authorized by the States. have shown that
such instructions are lawful and are sanctioned
bya the States, and therefore if it is TO be proved
that the Wheeling Bridge is an unlawful structure
better reason Must be given than that 1t may be
an obstruction TO commerce. .y..7.5 -
Let it not be answered that great mischief might
result these rights of State Were acknowledge:
ST., the argument from Inconvenience never proved
any thing. 1t can only show what ought 10 DC IL
cannot show what Is. The States, by inc cAcl
else of their reserved powers, might inlet great
injury upon others. What is the rcmedyi III
n court could apply one 10 a sovereign Stale, thch
the State would cease to be sovereign. me Sc
curity against the abuse by any OF the States OF
their reserved powers, is 10 be found in the good
faith of the State aud the interests of her people
Sir, if the States should be disposed to lntict m
Jury by an abuse of their reserved powers, they
have means enough for dong SO. A STATE may oe-
cline to elect Senators or Representatives 10 Coh-
press or NAV refuse to in the election OF n
President, and il any considerable number shouit
refuse TO do so, your very Government itself would
be overthrown point of land IN a State may
be peculiarly adapted for tortliicaton winch
might be indispensable 10 the safety oil the whole
country. But the State may refuse to cede me
land to the Government, and you have no remedy.
You may be engaged ina deSolating war ana terms
of peace may be offered YOU, requiring the surren-
der by State OF portion OF her ,efflloty. one
NAV refuse to par: with it, though the alternative
might be the loss of your independence, ana oil
your very existence Power. But the Constr
tuition has provided no remedy. These things are
left and were intended TO be left, TO the discretion
of the States. 1t is no objection to system OF
government that such powers were reserved by
them. God left free the human will. Its unTe-
strained impulses sometimes prompt the perpetra-
ton of crimes SO horrible and dreadful that they
would even lend a blacker shade 10 the nature OF
a ilend Is this reason for complaining OF the
arrangements OF Providence, which set before us
both good and evil, and left us free TO choose be-
tween them Would gentlemen have all lae al
fairs of human society regulated in ADVANCE upon
sort of fundamental principle oil optiihSii' ana
so bind up he hands OF States and people as TO
prevent every mischief that may be possible or
conce ivable
But, sir, admit that am wrong in these views
admit that the power TO regulate commerce, I'M
plies control over rivers and roads, and all the
channels OF commerce, yet tins power has been
granted to Congress- and MOTTO the Supreme Court,
and until 1t is exercised by Congress, and i'll such
way as to interfere with the original night oil tile
State, such right is moi impaired. This has been
declared by the supreme court OF lhc oNlteu
States itself. ..I...
In the case OF Sturges VS.. Crownlrshcld, this
court said that the mere grant OF power to Con-
gress does not imply prohibition OH the States TO
exercise the same power. ... ...
Judge Marshall, delivering the oplnlon OF Inc
court in Bevan's case, uses this language:
"Wlatevcr may be the constitutional powers oil
Congress- it is clear that this power has not been
exercised in this section OF the act, as to confer
on its courts jurisdiction over any oilenSc commit
ted in 4 river, haven, basin, or bay which river
haven, basin, or bay, is within the jurisdiction OF
any particular State.
'"What then. is the extent of jurisdiction which
State possesses We answer without hesitation,
the jurisdiction Of n State is coeXtenSlvc with It's
tcrritory-coextcnsiv with its lcslative power
'.1hc place described is unqucStionably within
the original territory of Massachusetts, II iS them
within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, unless that
jurisdiction has been cedcd 10 the United States.
ait is contenlcd to have been coded by that artI-
Gle in the Constitution which declares that Che
judicial power Shall extend to all cases OF admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction The argument is, that
the power thus granted is exclusive, and that tho
murder committed by the prisoner Is case oil ad-
miralty and maritime jurisdiction.
..I.ct this be admitted. 1t proves the power OF
Congress legsiate in the case; not that Congress
has exercised The power
1t will be observed, Mr.. Speaker, that the grant
in question was 10 the judicial power; yet II was
held that it vested 10 power IN the court, ana took
no power from the State, till Congress had acted
But, strange to say, the Supreme Court, IN the
Wheeling Bridge case, not only assume the exercise
of judicial powers never conferred, either by the
Constitution or law, but actually uSuTp legislative
powers also. They undertake 10 amend the char
Ter granted by the State of Virginia TO the Wheeling
Bridge Company, and prescribe the future eicva-
ton and grade OF the bridge, and the conditions up
on which they will allow its continuance. They
steamboats, and say what class o! boats may and
what may not, navigate the Ono. Sir, who gave
them the control of the waters OF orr rivers Are
there not many uses TO which these waters may be
put besides the for navigation! Are they not
often used for milling and manufacturing purposes,
ard sometimes, i'll the case OF the Crcton river,
for supplying the daily wants oil the pt opie OF 4
large city! These may even impair the use
of river for navigation, but who shall say what IS
its best use. and where did any court get power TO
prulI. am that might interfere with navIga-
ton! II they have no such control over the use
of the waters, how much less right have they TO
prescribe the elevation OF bridge suspended above
them! ..-.. ......
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (NIr. Thomas
II. Howe says that this bill is an effort TO place
Congress in attitude of anagcnism with nc DOR
dinaic branch of the Govelnment-yes sir, u co-or-
dinate branch Of the Government! This is des-
crption which the supreme Court OF the United
States are very much in the habit of applying to
themselves. lH....a.s .s ~ l.l ..r-...
The gentleman seems TO think that that branch
of the Govcrnnent-aS it is caiied-ls not only CO.
ordinate, but scprelne. Gentlemen fancy that SUI
prone powers have been granted TO tins court, and
that not only Congress- but Tie States must yield
obedience to their bchcStS. =.
Before, If, going into this question, l VIII say.
that there is effort i'll this case TO place Con-
gress in an attitude Of hostility 10 tine court. The
bill contemplntcS no such thing, as has been dem-
onsratcd by my friend from South Carolina, Mr..
Woodward But lift did, let us see what would
be the objections to such a course, and what are
the prercgalives OF this court. IL is called Su-
zrche. Why! Because 1t is superior to other de-
Of the Government? No, sir. 1t is
merely called supreme, as distinguished from the
inferior courts. The language CT the Constitution
is Chat the judicial power OF the United states
shall be vested in one supreme Court, anG Ill sHch
inferior courts as Congress may from time to TINE,
'oriaim and establish The word supreme Is used
rs distinguished from inferior, and inferior rs us
tinguistcd from supreme. Does Ii mean that SUI
preirc powers are granted the supreme Court!
III, SIR, luoh at the language OF the Constitution:
and it will be found that the the clauses granting
power the Executive, the legislative and the Ju-
dicial departments are identical in phraseology:
CART. i. sec /. All legislative powers herein
granted, shall be vested in Congress of the United
States. f a1
:sAnr. q Sec. /. The Executive power shall be
vested in the President of the United States of