Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1856-04-26
INTELLIGENCE
WHEELING BRIDGECAsE.


TWAS seen by our dispatches few days
since That the Wheeling Bridge case has been
finally decided by the Supreme Court. Tie
Bridge stands in spite of Pittsburgh and Mr..
.Jnsti6e Grier, a monument ofarta attainment,
and . rebuIe to malice and judicial Jefreyism.
II win be seen from the report that the effect
of the decisien Of the court is to rebuke Mr.
Justice Grier, to uphold the law of Congress,
and to say to Judge Grier that they will not
support an injunction granted in malice, and
that, too, without even reading the bill. They
further, in effect, say that they will not attach
gentlemen of character merely because they do
not sec fit to obey the ost-pranezial dictates of
the epitome JefIreys of. our Jurisprudence. The
costs in the first suit must ofcourse be borne by
the. Bridge Company, those of the second pro-
ceedingS, by the State of Pennsylvania.
Now that the whole question is settled, it may
appear presumption us to express ouro opinion
ofitbcl proceedings had the cause, but we do
so in order that the views presented may pass
for what thcy are worth and no moro. Such
questions may we'll be thought of by all in these
days of Federal usurpation and disregard of
State Rights We haveaIways held the opinion,
lcornmon here, that the Supreme Court of the
United States had no original Jurisdiction in this
cause and that the whole case should have ter
minated upon the demurrer or objector to the
jurisdiction. We know that Admiralty juris-
5diction has in these latter days been assumed by
the Federal Courts, over all our nayigable
streams, but we have yet to find law for such
assumption. The Courts Of the United States
are courts of special jurisdiction, and common
law is applied by them only to the subjects of
its jurisdiction, as given by the Constitution and
proper statutes under that Constitution.
Hence, we have always thought that the case
should not have been originally decided by this
Court. Then the assumption of that Court to
decide the question of nuisance or no nuisance
bya commissioner, when twas question of fact
for a Jury, was cardinal error. It also re-
fused to hear evidence us to the comparative i'm
portance of the bridge and boats to the trade
and travel of the Union. In this, however, Mr..
Justice Mclean has signally over ruled theCourt
and HIMSELF in his late opinion on the Rock ISL
and case, which We commend to the careful pc
rusal of Chancellor Walworth and Mr.. Justice
Gricr. The Court has affirmed, by its recent
decision, the law of Congress legalizing the
Bridge. Now we have serious doubts whether
Congress had any such authority. The Consti-
tuition authorizes Congress 'to establish post-oC-
fees and post roads," but does this give Com
gross authority to determine 'Ohere road shall
5 be made, or t0here one shall be maintained p
We merely suggest the question. Docs not the
clause indicated intend, simply, to let Congress
locate pOst-oficcs and define post rOutcs'
We have long since come to the conclusion
that Congress has direct authority enough given
for all practical purposes, and it is becoming
quite too fond of implied powers, even for our
liberal construction Of its powers.