New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-09-22
NEW YORK DAILY TRIBUNE. SEPTEMBER p 1853

on uaygabe IF the "a whst her great small,
.reete BY authority ri the State legislature for DO
lie. purposes. Nor do the circ Of the present
case in that resTect materially differ from the l
Black Brd Creek case. The Hudson above Albany I
j. very mail and consds rabe stream, only rnper-
f.c.ly nayigsbe for very few miles. The State has
TOM II necessary 10 supply channel by cons-
nipg the combined Esie and Champ.an Canals TO A.
bany.
Albany il port II entry. doe not affect the parallels
IN, al the cases. Coa-ting vessels have the free om
of nsyig,iop hereyc. navigation pursued, equally
sbove and below ports 4 entry. The designation Of
vort Of entry Is a mere rcguhu'h hF purposes OF
revenue not for purposes %. commerce..
IT,. " hreling Bridge - the chief reliance II
the couplanauts. The suspension bridge at nee!-
irc was close bridge. which suffered no vessels 70
pas IT al except those whose m.-ts "' oslinhe.s
xwer,. low enough 10 20 under i. Ana the supreme
Court although Il condemned tie bridge 10 D. abated
for dis reason vet modified the decislol a. fAetl
"a y 10 rescird tia, judgment when the structure 81
III. bridge should b. modified as 10 permit the eH-
cluded vessels 10 pass by crcmtors ehanhei through
a draw 10 be- prepared FOR that purpose,
|, is however insisted by the counsel tha the pn-
cipes decided in that sustain the compaihals ur
Hand IN this enc. In considering a case soc". i
q, the Wheeling Bridge was, We are 70 Suaid
against giving the character Of authority 10 Arguments
ofthe Court not directly bearing on The subject dsciai
Mr. Justice Grier who was one 81 tie Judges VINO az
cded that case has since had occasion {" interpret ,ne
decision in his circuit. IN cases n nearly para1ei
to lhis one as easily be concelvcd; ana N doug
So lie has demonstrated, hrst that the "hesnhg
Bridge case does not override the BACK DIIu
Greek case: ard secondly that the former ease does
not uphold the positions assumed by the ccmpaiaanIs
ID this case. e..
in which bills fled by licensees under The toastinS
Act OF Congress 70 obtain iniunctions against TIE
erection Of two drawbridges over the Passac kiVsr
nayicable armot the which extends from New York
bav into New-Jersey within the territorial jurisdiction
90 that st,te-one Il which bridges 10 be erected
!. y. ~. Ial,y Newark Of entry.
The projected bridges had been authorized by laws
Of the State OF Ney-Jersey, aud each Of the O4iIs
charged that the bridge assailed would inevitably prove
10 be nuisance productive of irreparable INJURY Inc
Cont decininc-I had almost sad, disdaining 10
examine the questions OF dismissed the bis t'r
want Of jurisdiction His Honor Mr justice Grer'
in assigning the PERSONS 81 the Court decIareh 'ha'
bridge authorized by the State Of New-Jersey coma
not be- treated "a nuisance by the laws OF New
Jersey which constituted the rule Of decision ~ the
State Courts am, Of the Circuit Courts OF the thri
States when sitting within that State Ii the Legs
lature have declared that bridges over the Passalc
with draws will not So impede the commerce III TIE
river as to b. injurious become public nuisanoes,
where said the Judge, can the Courts oi New7Jersey
find any Authority for ov-uuilug reversing or nuliF-
ing legislative acts sub eci matter over whehn
ha. exclusive iuri.dctiou' Admitting, for the sake II
argument that Congress, in the exercise OF the COM
uercial mower NAV regulate the hight of bridges on
public river State below port OF entry, or may
forbid their erection altogether, they have never yet
assumed the exercise of such power; nor have they
by any legislative act conferred this power on The
Courts. The bridges win not be instances by the
laws of New-.Jersey TIE United States has no com
mon law offenses and has passed statutes declaring
such erection to be nuisance If So "a Court
not interfere by arbitrary decree either Ia restrain
the erection Of bridge 10 define is form ana pro-
portions. II is plain that these subjects of rgs
atiyc not judicial discretion. The learned Judge then
proceeds to show that while the Of Wilson against
the Black Bend Greek Mail Company governs the
eases, now before him. that case on The one hand
does at all conflict with the previous Gbbon
against Ogden, and the other hand is not at all
impaired oveTIuied 10y the subsequent of the
Wheeling Bridge.
few words on the question Of feet or rather on the
question Of opinion concerning fact involved in this
case, become necessary III view OF my legal positions
being possibly oyeTuled.
/ have studied with care the ANALYSIS Of the
case which his honor the presiding Judge has given
in tie opinion to which in at least connection
have already alluded.
He tells us that the question is "Will the projected
bridge constitute obstruction of the free navigation
of the river within the meaning of the Constitution
and acts of Congress which secure To the complanans
and other citizens right 10 the enjoyment of the
same. He has assured us that il would be suffi-
cient defense If the defendants should show that the
proposed bridge would not be substantial, material
or serious obstruction to them. With profound re-
spect for the Court, which am sure i shall not be
supposed to affect, am nevertheless Obliged to
fees that the question seems to me 10 be Of much
higher import and more comprehensive relations than
might be Inferred from the analysis Of II thus given 70
us by the Bench.
Tie question seems to me to be this: Whether the
benefits of the bridge would outweigh its INJURIES
whether, comparing all the local and general incOii
yenences, annOyances, hurts and damages which the
proposed bridge over tho Hudson River at Albany
would probably produce win eli the benefits, local aud
general, immediate ard futnrc, which would accrue to
the people Of the immediate vicinity Ia the whole peo
pie of the State at NewYork TAI the whole people of
the United States and to kind balance must be
struck against the proposed s;Tucturel
II must be remembered, in determining this ques-
ton that there is no inquiry whether the bridge
shah be butt at the place proposed, and IN the
form and with the proportions and conditions ordained
by the Legislature Of New York or shall be- built at
some other Place ard with other and
better proportions and conditions. The bridge which
il tn be- built y erected at all must be just such one
the Legislature mas directed 1t must be that bridge
That bridge, may il please your IIonors, vii be no
merely ocal Institution, cTamped and confined in is
uses end effects Ia Exchange street to Albany and
Greenbufh To Troy and West Troy, to Lansins burgh
ana waterford, or To the porters carmen, market
men, hackney coaclmeH MERCHANTS lawyer physi-
cans, editors ana elergynen Of any all OF these
places; or To the sloors schooner, steamers bargrs
end rats, which ply ~ busy and increasingly III those
ports and harLCrs.
The Presiding Judge has very Justly minated that
the conduct Of trade and travel undergoing changes.
Steadily, though not rapidly, the sail-Nsse is dsap-
Fearing from our waters, and leaving them 10 an ex-
elusive occupancy b. stean-driyen vessels. Barges
and canalboats used a. barges shed fast by bswsers
to tie steamer, spread out II often To cover in
width the whole channel. But change Of even
greater in pei has been produced by tae vet recent
chiefly BY steGm-p"wer on the water when that is
possible, passeT 20 almost exclusively By steam
power the land. Perhaps should do iIjlstice 10
tie Presdirg Judge were to infer from the spirit
81 Ills rem ark on thu nu0y alton that he attaches
more Importance 10 the carrlac, Of freight on tae
"a lie e.Frt