Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1853-05-14


Statetman, in regard to the injunction obtain
the Junction Railroad Company, bridging the
Sandusky Bay. The true version Of the in-
junction seems TO be that the Junction Rail
Road has not the power TO bridge the Bay,
but that the Sandusky and Port Clinton Rail
Road has, and that the Bay will be bridged
under their charter. The Register says that
the following is the correct statement OF the
nature Of the injunction, as il was granted:
"'The Junction Road was originally charter
ed to 90 West through Fremont, but upon
survey being made, the shortest route by some
ten miles was found to be across the Bay, by
way of Port Clinton. The Directors Of the
Junction Road, fearing those interested in hav-
ing the roaG go to Fremont would ask for an
injunction, organized under the General Law
OF Ohio under charter called the Port Gin
ton Company, and located their Road and con-
tracted for the building of the same. The
whole question came up before Judge Mclean,
and be decided that the junction Road could
not bridge under their charter, but that the
Port Clinton Company could bridge the Bay,
and under that charter the junction Road will
bullu
As will be seen by the above. the Times
acknowledges the authority of the Tribune,
and stands corrected We therefore hope he
will no, object to the bridging of the Maumee
at Toledo. by the 7. N. d G. r. r. But If he
finds it hard pill to swallow, let him cut out
Of the Tribune's columns this passage. and
paste il in the top of his hat:
at (lhe decision) settles the important ques-
tion to the Roads leading West, as the Toledo
and Norwak Road are about building bridge
across the Maumee at Toledo, to avoid the
ferry"
Cousolng, that-neighbor Times.
The Register finds extreme felicity in the
fellowship of the Toledo Blade, who, it would
seem, like himself, believes the bridging of any
water lawful and proper, when it will result
in benefit to his own village. The love of one
own town or section of country is no doubt
commendable, if lie be a title selfish. But
that patriotism will sacrifice the principles of
justice, ii is no longer virtue, but vice.
Hear what the Blade says of the opinion Of the
learned Judge:
"rhis opinion is very important one. and
decides the question of the right Of Railroads
to cross navigabe streams in their favor, on
principles Of general application. 1t can no
longer be doubted, under this decision, that
Railroads may cross any Of the navigable
streams of the country, by bridges, provided
they supply them with suitable draws to fa-
clitate the passage of vessels"
Now we fully agree with neighbor Blade,
that this as "a very important decision, "and
tl,r 81, ,f to
streams" providing they in no manner OBJ
struct navigation. But for argument sake we
will allow the Register 10 be correct when he
says, that "the right of crossing navgsble wa
ters with railroad bridge is fully and concIu
siveIy established" by Judge McLeans dcta.
And for the same purpose we will for one mo-
ment admit that the Blade says truly, "that it
can no longer be doubted under this decision
that railroads may cross anv Of the navigable
streams of the country by bridges, provided
they supply them with suitable draws to ia,
clitate the passage Of vessels"
Nov, the inhabitants of Huron and Detroit
are anxious to become nearer neighbors. 1t is
true they have direct water communication,
ESQ has Sandusky City with Toledo,) but that
method of travelling has become entirely OBJ
solete, since people have learned how nicely
they may be mashed into jelly in less than
no time while riding on rail-" Hence, the
people of Detroit and Huron propose con-
structing railroad from Huron up the beach
of the lake TO Cedar Point, thence across the
mouth of Sandusky Bay to the Plaster Bed
and thence in direct line to Detroit across
Lake Erie, leaving "draw to facilitate! the
passage of vessels" at the mouth of the Bay
and also one nearly in a line from Cleveland
to Toledo, through which vessels may pass
with facility. Would not the Blade conceive
this to be plain encroachment upon the
rights of Toledo? (of course Sandusky would
as to herself) If his construction of this opin.
ion of his Honor be correct, Toledo has no rem.
edy. Suitable draws" have been left in the
road, or bridge. and you say Judge Mclean
has decided that "navigable waters may be
crossed, on the conditions of leaving draws, 8
thing which It is proposed to do in this case
Suppose such were the case as to the decision
and also the proposition to construct the road
as aforesaid, would you then. as now, say:
"In these days of Railroad predominance
there can scarcely be any portion of the Unior
to which it will be unacceptable, for the very
good reason that the great termini of ou
Railroads, at all commercial points, are gener
ally in condition to need the protection O
such doctrine
AS to the Register, we can easily judge o
its course in such case, and we should n,
doubt be forcibly impressed with the value o
consistency in view Of it. The time may no
be far distant, when we shall have an expires
sion of the Registers mind in case similar t
the one supposed.
But we claim that the conclusions of thu
Register and Blade, "that the right to crosl
navigable waters by railroad bridges" at al
events, are not warranted by the language O
Judge Mclean in his opinion. He says:
"The plan Of the Bridge over the Sandus
ky Bay having been approved by Steedman
the acting commissioner, and the place o
crossing being within his jurisdiction. it is no
\ doubted that under the "Port Clinton char
ter" bridge may be constructed as proposed
if IL cause no obstruction TO commerce" Doei
this look like allowing Railroads to cross navi
gable waters at all events? Does this establish