Daily Davenport gazette. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1854-1855, 1855-02-06
Eas ssate the light to Build Bridge across
O NSyigsbls Ssrsami

In an article in yesterday mornings pa
per upan the removal of the Capital oflowa,
We stated our Intention at the FIRST leisure
TO give the evidence upon which we based
very positive assertion, with regard d the
construction ofthe bridge across the Missis.
sinpi river at this point. The following
article from the Louisvlle .Ioara.l, which
we find in the Railroad Record, embodiee
the ideas and gives in very clsaE and sat
isiactory manner the very case in evidence
to which we intended to refer -
The right 10 ob.truct the navigation Of
liver by building bridge over il, has been
d MED. ana, in the Wheeling bridge case,
the Supreme Court OF the United States es-
tsbIsh "a The law on this subject. The
night Of navigation is decided to be the prior
vested ripht but us We understand that
case the ri2itto erect the bridgeis concedeA,
provided it is 90 built as not to impede
navigation
Il il not our purpose to enter into an ar
rument in reference to the rights ct bridge
companies, but simply 70 draw attention 10
proceeding that has recently been insti-
tu,ed in the Circuit Court OF the United
States for the Eastern District oil Pennsyi
vania, that is OF muchimporiance, as in this
case, the right Of States 10 authorize bridges
10 be built across navigabie rivers is di-
rectly denied, The Constitutional ques-
ton involved in this case will fad "a ap-
plication in every State in the Union
and more especial y in The West, where
projects for building bridg 5 over the navl-
gdbie rivers are frequently started,
/ Through the machinery of this case, GER
tain theories with regard to The general gov
eminent. which have acquired OF. late years
Econspiluous prominence aad development,
are ut las, concentrated and brought to u
i focus. They are now set face to face IN
what's perhaps final struggle with The
severe gn,y o! the States in their Internal
affairs.
The case is this: A citizen or New Hamp-
shire, alleging that he is engaged IN trade
wiki the city of Philadelphia, carried on IN
vessels which receive their cargoes in the
| Schuy!kilI river at some distance from its
mouth, has brought bill IN equity against
the Penrose Ferry Bridge Co, 4 corporation
chartered BY the State Of Pennsylvania Tor
! the purpose Of building 4 bridge over that
| river. which bill asks Tor the removal OF the
bridge, now nearly completed, on the ground
that il il an distraction 10 nsFagailon; anu
| in the meantime preys az injunction to 70
strain its further progress The Sehuyik'!
| i stream OF considerable sze, aoWing en-
/ tirely within the STATE af Pennsylvania. -
/ For lis last ten miles il passes through the
corporate limits of The city Q Philadelphia,
where il then leaves to empty Itself into the
i \: pi, hrltlf
| separates tie most important portion OF lie
town from the western and southern pfrts
OF the State, and the internal trade from
these quarters, and mach from the north,
passes over it: while on the other hand the
main roads Of Pennsylvania concentrate up
on its western banks. To accommodate
this traffic there are now in use five bridges
| four o. which are railroad bridges, and Re
also below the point To which the river il
navigable.
/ Such, however, il the increase oftrade and
the growth of the city that this number has
become quite insufficient, and toremedy tie
lcvil the legislature has been obliged p pro
| vide tor the or elton ofseyorll new BRIGGS
one OF which il ta2t nos. sought to be re-
strained
| The principal and almas, the soLe COM
MERGE ofthe river itself is in the coal trade.
| The coal il brought down from the interior
! in the barges 0. the Sehuylkll Navigation
Company, il unloaded below the permanent
bri1ge. aud then re-shipPed into coasting
| vessels. TIE Penrose bridge is abo ut two
lm!es below this point. Il vas provided
with draw, ard is some eight feet above
| high .wnter mark. 1t would furnish no OBJ
struction to the passage Of boats or barges
| but would delay or prevent the passage Of
vessels with rsasts. On account ot the
legged injury 10 him in this respect, the
com plainant, who i affected IN the last cat
enorv, has asked tie interference of tn.
court. II seams to be understood that the
Schuylkill Navigation Co. is the real com-
plainant.
The complainant applied 70 the court f9r
preliminary Injunction upon afitarits.
while an answer was put in denying the
equities ofihn bill. No direct legislatonon
the part Of Congress over the Scbuylki'
was shown, but it was ms sted tina. Phiiadel-
pbia, lying on the ScAny.kiil, .'ad always
been port or entry, ard that the revenue
officers exercised their duties on that river,
which il was arguad, was equivalent to d.
rect regulation. But the main stress oithe
argument turned upon generai denial OF
the right Of the State.o althorizc, in sny
manner, the obstruction of navigahle
cream. And this was the view oi the cir
cult nudge, under tie authority Of the
Wheeling Bridge case (l3th Ito @d,) recent
Iy decided in ,he Supreme court; and ne &c
cordlngy expressed his opinion at once in
favor Of granting the injunction. The dis
trict Judge, however, reserving his opinion
rs 10 thu main question, dissented on the
ground that the point was too important a
one, and that too many valuable improve
nents BY the State depended for their va
lidity upon its determination TO justify the
H. .iLn .,ILcs.inrn nm nrelimi-