The north Iowa times. [volume] (M'Gregor [i.e. McGregor], Iowa) 1856-1857, 1857-10-07
The Bridge Case,

1t will be seen by the annexed opinions ex-
pressed by Judge Mclean, on point growing
incidentally oat OF the Rock Island b idge
case that the suit turns altogether on The qucs-
ton of the amOvnt of the obstruction it offers
to navigat on:
There is no question but that State has q
right to grant a charter 10 build bridge over a
free stream, but care must lie taken that that
b idgc lie 70 material ol struc:ion.
The majority of the Judges in the Wheeling
Bride case held that it did materially obstru, t
| con mcrcc, and Congr IS, undertook to reverse
it, end the majority of the Court with whom
did not concur, yielded the ONT. The bridge
stands, although not IA vessel from Pittsburgh
can ascend or descend without lowering her
chimnoys, and that is considerable tax. 1t
amounted to $4,000 FOR annum. The Sup.
RENE Court rovided that if the Company would
open channel in another place to enable boats
to ass, that that should be u removal Of the
obstruction; but Congress determined that they
had power TO nallify the decision of the Sup
rene Court
Wherever the jurisdiction Of Congress ex.
tends, that power, is paramount. The States
then shall authorize no fridge that will mate
rally obstruct the channel of commerce, and
where such an obstruction is made. M individual
has Il li-ht to ask that such nuisanccs be rcmov
cd. TWAS on this ground that the Wheeling,
Bridge case was de ided. 1t was considered a
material obstruction.
These great interests must be accommodated
the crossing public. as well as til, Sc engaged
in raw igation-but they must be so arranged
| as not to obstruct the navigation, eff our riv.
crs.
They arc under. the guardianship of ourgov.
crnmcn mt, and it is not for every slight expense
or delay that they shall ask railroad to be
| prohibited. Every draw is somewhat of an
obstruction, yet they arc found everywhere
without complaint. There is some delay bu,
| this delay is incident to our com erce and the
Business of the country. Shall this great rail
road enter rize. which has surpassed the most
sangunc expectations. of our anc"stors-shall
this all be cut off from crossing this river and
ting down great principle of the Constitution.
Still, the government goes upon the principle
that they are not incomratible with each other.
1t is not that the amount of commerce on a
railroad shall arth'rize the dcstr, ction of riv-
or. but it does authorize legislature to pro.
vide for the transmission of it across naviga-
bic stream. on the condition that it shall not
materially obstruct commerce.
cannot s"c how any light can be thrown
upon this subject by bringing up a statement of
tie business of this railroad or river, unless il
be to show tn" great pose OF the enterprise
of the rIidoad. see no objection to hear: ng
it, but rot to show that the commerce of the
river may be obsructed. That river IS well
called the Father of Waters. There is no other
IN the globe that bears such commerce. II
extends throu2h many States ard Ter. tories
1t is t,e greatest river upon earh-but sill
we have right to brid e il. divided we make
no material obstru tor. No evidence of this
kind is allowed to BE- off red to inpair the right
of navigating it.-Er.
In the case above refer to, the Jury failed
to agree. and were discharged-The Whole
ground will be again travelled over Unless tho
parties com: rom;sc. We can see from the
points made by Justice Mclean about where
the question hes in law-.he trouble now is to
discover the facts.