The Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1852-1853, 1853-01-19
UeU
The wheeling Bridge.

he N0HpHtng telteft nom the ccfreSpon'
deAt Of DE New York Courier, on the subject
ol the Wheeling Bridge case, will be found
o. infeFesf at hs tine. l. is more peculiar
~ Interesting now, from the fact, that the
vrsef OF the Supreme Court is to be sxseu-
ned in February, unless SOM selion be hse
IL The meantime, which viii render such 6
course unnecessary. The letter is dated
Washington. Dec. 80.
II is probable that one of the most grave
and important issues which has ever risen
under cur form of Government, involving no
less than a conflict Of jurisdiction and COLI
sion Of authority, between the judicial and
legislative departments, may occur at an
early day. Al the last regular term of the
Supreme Court, the case prosecuted by the
State Of Pennsylvania VS.. the Wheeling and
Belmont Bridge company, eontesdng the le-
gal right of the bridge across the Ohio At
Wheeling, was argued and decided. \ large
majority OF the court, as many as six against
two-the latter being Judges fancy end
Daniels-hem that the bridge was All OBJ
s~truetion to the free navigation of the river,
and therefore a nuisance, in legal contem-
plauon. But in order to relieve the oumpa-
ny from any extraordinary cost, the decree
admitted that an elevation of the height OF
ons hundred and eleven feet from low wat
or, for a width of three hundred feet across
the channel of the river, would be regarded
as en- abutmept Of the nuisance and a reno
val of the obstruction.
When this opinion was pronounced, the
counsel for the bridge suggested to the
Court, that the obstruction might be reno
we'd by ranking a draw, and it was ordered
that Mr., M&Alpine, the engineer to whom
the spbjeetWSS referred, should report his
opinion before the second Monday in tie
ensuing May. When the Court again con
vened the original decree was so modified
as to allow the bridge company to construct
E draw Of two hundred feet III length across
in the western channel, to be used when
navigation was interrupted under the sus-
pension bridge, which was to be considered
an abatement of the nuisance. This COM
promise was acceptable at the time and both
parties seemed satisfied.
Congress was in session at and after both
these periods. As soon IS the first decision
OF the Court was rendered, the opinion VI
the minority was printed and circulated
through the western country, mass NEE ing
were convened in the Sa-es Of Ohio. Indiana
and Illinois, and their Representatives were
instructed to vote for such legislation as ef,
f~ectually vitlate the decree OF the Supreme
Court. Accordingly an amendment was
offered to the Post Office appropriation bill
declaring the Wheeling bridge q post rou,e
z and a legal strucsure-in other words, pre-
eiseIy what the Court had decided it was
,,Nt- This or,nrIr,ap+ banor,n. thA 1o-C n
the land, and as such it stands to-day. Thit
bridge company have not exhibited any dis
position to comply with the order 4 thu
Court, and claim to be absolved from al
responsibility by the intervention Of Con
gress,
When the modified decree Of the CouY
was given, il was ordered that the councj
on either side might move in regard to tt
execution on the first Monday in Februm,
next. And it is to be presumed the Sta,
of Pennsylvania will be represented her
then, to demand the execution, and the al
verse party to resist the motion, on til
ground that he legislation cited interposes
constitutional barrier,
Now. suppose the Court sustaining i
own deliberate Judgment, should hold thu
the nuisance had not been aba:ed accordin
TO lis order, and should direct the L. Stat
marshal 10 remove the bridge, what woul
occur? The people Of Wheeling would Pr,
badly resist the Marshal, under the prete!
that they were uphQldlng the law Of Coz
gress, and then the question would ari:
whether the President would sustain tt
Court by the military power or allow it 10
restrained by the mob?
No one doubts the full commercial pow,
Of Congress, and its right to legalize th
structure under the ordinary exercise
that power, But here was Il special ca.
under existing laws, decided by the highe
judicial tribunal, and the legislation was i
tended-whatever it professed to the cou
tly--to subvert that decision. Now, VIII,
shall stand, the law as Interpreted by Il
constitutional authority, or a law ~contriy'
to defeat the exercise Of that authority
This is q serious proposition, and cannot
too much deliberated. There is great de
ger in tamperlng with the judiciary qnd
any circumstances, but still greater dang
when the yehemence Of interested and ex,
ted opinion is brought to bear upon Co
gress, for the express purpose Of oyerthro
ing its judgments. ii the market hoas
and stumping grounds, who're demagogu
t'most do eongregate," arc tc determine I
law, as it is particularly contemplated in t
instance, what is the use of Courts at 9
Concede this much and more will By req
red. Strike at the integrity of the bench,
anpulling its DEGREES, and before long I
tap-rooms and '~tbarbacues' will resoW
with impeachments against your Judges.
be tried on the charges Of mandlin and
based politicians. We are attbe beginn4
let US take heed, lest we soon reach the 81
THE PRESS IND1sPENsApLE.-The no1