The weekly hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1858-1860, 1858-10-26
,eIINoTON WEEKLY HAwK.EYE
~..v noCx ISLAND BRIDGE.

rusE ROCK ISLAND BNhDGRs
!. f1anesry before the District Court o
=, usited States for the District Of los'a {
w.kp 70. THE MISSISSIPPI L lrssouR
.RrykR RAIL ROAD COMPANY.
Opiniea Of the CoaPt.
rhs object Of this Bill is to abase the Rooa
lana Bridge as an obstruction to the Naviga-
e - the Mississippi River and Public
..,.s The motion now before the Court
Ter doe. no. aim at that object. The
..,o, vbe,her the Bridge isa Public Nui-
IT,, could no. be determined upon this prsli-
-, motion, supported BY the e1 parss ses-
-. .h;ch has been read. That question
o,,v y. decided .. the fual hearing OF the
l.,;,. and upon depositious regularly taken.
Trhn defendants have answered within the
h. denvinr tie material allegations Of the
H. III. Plaintiff moves tho Court for spe-
II Injunction to restrain the Defendants ''o"'
I.svg certain farther erecsions intended TO
md strengthen one Of the Piers Of the
e.. Tais motion 10 supported BY afiidavits
x;,hout notice or cross-exsmination, oil
a., 10 show that the Bridge 10 . material
E...e,;oo 10 the navigation of the River.
Th. ru,. i. well settled that where an answer
L, h.eo filed denying the material allegations
The Bill an Injunction cannot be granted
.ns.ri,s except to prevent some impend-
4 and irrep.r.ble injury. This Rule is found
ID il ii. reason Of the Law. A sworn answer
| cs.ncery, when responsive to the Bill, is it,
IL .,;d.,cs 40 strong tha, it must be overcome
The testimony of two witnesses or by that OF
4. vj.ucss fortified by circumstances. Afiiaa- |
L. can never be used At all As evidence except |
Iuss. certain pressing exigencies which cannot
p.Orided for by testimony regularly taken.
6Isiu are used er aseessitats, and where no
kss,y exists they cannot be relied ON. I'm
be party moving for the injunction 10
ssaed with somo impending and irreparA-
sarg there 10 no necessity Tor resorting to
1eny taken without notice and without the
# Cross examination. Hence the rule
u. shove.
ill., il is admitted that the Court can make
lr3sr for the removal of the Bridge until
.l hearing. Indeed, the Bridge, even in
N wnt Of decree against it, will probably
\, utouched until the 6oal determination
hi cause in the Supreme Court. The atii-
Il read by the Complainant abundantly
!, du the Bridge is material obstruction
uvIya.ioo, but none of them afford the
s.ea evidence that the danger of the navi.
4, in passing the Draw will be in the least
nee Increased BY the repairing and strength
hr Of the Pier as proposed by the Defendants.
the contrary, counter atfidavits read by the
k.u1an,s establish the fact that the additional
lo7ry viii in no.wise add to the difficulty
I,,.iey tie Draw. This fact seems, indeed,
lave beea conceded in the argument. The
k.,sr aia!acits further show that the Pier in
ksiou vii probably, If not fortified as pro
bei by the Defendants, yield to the pressure
LIB. cs a. the breaking up Of the river in the
kas
1
,usvisa,or Of the river, is threatened with
immediate and irreparable injury in con- ,
sauce OF the proposed repairs.
II we're admissible by the rules of law to
nEter the atidlvits read by the Plaintiff
tchng the grea: question involved in this
D., the Court would, without hesitation, de
J. that the Bridge is a most material obstruc.
TO navigation. But upon the dnal hearing
cass made by these Afidavits may be over t
bed, and the Court may be forced by legal /
uouy 10 the conclusion that the Bridge is 1
], public nuisance but a lawful structure {
p5e in the meantime the Pier in question !
III yield to the pressure OF the ice, how /
the injury to the Defendants be repaired? {
remedy by suit upon the injunction Bond
fses constantly recurring loss resulting from !.
r iehy Of trains Of cars in crossing the rlysr I
.d nanfestly prove inadequate. t
he o.her consideration has much influence .
'hc Court in deciding this motion. I. Is
tiad that the Bridge itself must stand until =.
inal determination Of this cause. In the :,
faiitne it will oe in use, and trains containing
fons and property will pass over it daily
a:sres. and safety Of the public therefore
(aie that Pier which is proved to be insult 4
sa should be strengthened and the Bridge i,
p made as secure as possible. {,
Tie motion is therefore oyerruled.
]. NJ. LOVE.