New-York daily tribune., 1856-04-23


great snd obvious. a
The Supreme Court Of the United States, fou' W
irs itself mainly upon old common lsw views ant
doctrine. as TO the interruption OF free passage
over psvicable wstsrs held that the bridge as IL
tb.n Was. did smou,t in le gal point Of view 70
nuisance and that il must BE- sbsted either by the
removal Of the bridge entirely. er at least BY Ire
elevation 50 ,bstthe larcps class Of steamers might
pass under it without Inscription. As an offset
o this decision and TO protect Themselves against
beipc OBLIGED 10 submit 10 il, the Bridge Company
obtained an Act of Congress declaring the bridge
post route. and enActing that steamboat chimneys
should accommodate themselves 10 the bridge In
stead of the bridge being required, as the court
bsd decreed. 10 conform itself to the chlmneyS
Tb. procedure was denounced by the opponents
of the bridge rs a usurpation on the part OF Con-
eress. an interference with the rghtu authority OF
the court. and as in 10 way of any ava. to defeat
tie order for the removal or alteration OF the
bridge. Judge Grier, himself citizen Of Pitts
bu1gb and on al points an extreme bunker en-
tered zealously into this view; but even he seems
10 have hesitated shout issuing process for the
10 his aid The bridge being struck by awhirwind
or tornado, its oscillations twisted the immense
iron chains by which it was supported, and the
whole structure was left in few moments heap
OF ruins.
The en,erprising prOprietors were, however, no
more disposed TO yield quietly to this side wind
than they had been to the decree OF the Court, and
II fOr rah
il the bridge. and for increasing its usefulness BY
making il thoroughfare for railroad communlca-
ton as well as for ordinary travel. Thereupon
Judge Grier, upon application made to him on that
behalf issued an injunction sgainst the rereection
of the bridge and took other proceedings In the
case with view to carly out the Judgment Of the
Supreme Court. Against these proceedings the par
ties affected BY them have made loud complaints,
and bv their recent decision at least OF his coll
lesgues on the bench of the Supreme Court seem TO
have regarded them as a usur patton By Judge Grer
of an authority which, if TO be exercised at all,
ought only to be exercised with the sanction OF the
entire Court Not only have they set aside these
proceedings: they have refused also TO sustain
the Injunction, thereby admitting the power of Con-
oril insl decree
Thus is settled, we take il, forever, question
of great interest 10 all the States bordering on the
Ohio and the Mississippi, and settled, too, as we
think in conformity to the progressive spirit OF the
times 1t is undoubtedly perfectly sound prlncl'
pie that no merely private interest ought TO be al
lowed TO interfere with the free passage up and
down nayiQable river. But tits evident, also, that
be side the private interest of the company that
builds this bridge and expects TO make money by
receiving tolls for passage over It, the public have
Oh interest in convenient and speedy passage
across the river in respect inferior 10 their inter-
est in the convenient and speedy passage up and
down il. The navigation of the river is protected
not cut of regard 10 the mere private interest OF
the steamboat owners nor even the local interest
of the city Of Pittsburgh and of the other towns and
cities ON its shores. What light have those private
and local interests TO claim any special privilege
or advantage over other private and local interests
which might be promoted by nterrupting the navi-
cation 1t is plain that the only principle upon
which the general right of free passage up and down
river il maintained, as against private and LEGAL
interests that might be promoted by interruptions
of it, is rot the particular advantage OF individuals
but the general advantage to the entire public
derived from that free navigation. Till within
very recent period, there was no method OF travel
or tra1 sporton that for ease cheapness and general
convenience, could compare with that of nsvigable
water and il was therefore for the best Of reasons
that the keeping Of nsvigable waters open and free
was held BY the old common law 10 be consldera-
tion that ought 10 have precedence over all others
The invention of railroads has quite changed the
state of facts and the reason Of the law disappear
ing, the law must disappear with it. There are very
few uayiCable rivers that, all things considered,
IA a medium Of communication, taking passengers
as well az goods into account, stand IN advantage
Gus comparison with well. built and well-equpped
railroad The Ohio is commonly considered, and
with good reason too, navigsbe river OF the hrst
class, yet John Randolph denounced 1t as mere
sham. 20 far as navigation was concened-dried up
for six m pths of the year. and frozen for the other
six. This was expressing the idea rather strongly
as was John RandOlphs habit; yet what with the
drouth of Summer and the frost OF Winter,
nayigable rivers in our climate labor under evident
disadvantages, compared with the regular and
and certain operations OF railroad.
Tpder this new state Of facts i. is evident that
the old common law doctrines as to navlgaole
waters must undergo certain modification. Win
the new importance given TO land transportation
cases must continually occur in which the puohc
convenience will require that the uninterrupted
freedom Of passing up and down q river should give