The New York herald., 1870-12-10
He OU R T S.
A Custom House Case-Car Conductors OF the
Traok-A Complicated Case-A Lawyer in
ouest Of Commissions Unravelling a
Drsssmaker's Problem-Important to
Insurers-A Flaw in an Indictment
ruHlTED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Bridges Obstruction 20 Navigation-EGoct
of Lesislation Pending Suits.

of Legislation Pending Suits.
WASHINGTON, d. c., Dec o, 1870.
No. 8. Richard O. cray Us. the chicago, Iooa ana
Nebraska Ratirodd C01npanv-Appeal rom the Or
cut court for the District OF Ioacd.-This suit was
brought to restrain the erection OF bridge over the
Mississippi river at Clinton, Iowa, on the allegation
that II erected It would be q common nuisance and
material obstruction TO navigation. While the
suit was pending Congress passed an act declaring
the bridge to be a legal structure and making It o
post route Of the United States, and when the cause
came to be heard counsel for the Bridge Company
objected the Introduction OF evidence tending to
show the bridge to be nuisance. on tha ground
that the act or Congress declaring the bridge
TO be lawful structure, and rendered all
such testimony immaterial and was decisive
Of he case tss sI hi a ana me Tn
error assigned here. The appellant insists that It Is
80 unusual Tor the Legislature to interfere with
pending litigation, or TO make any new rules which
snail dispose OF particular case before the courts,
the act VIII not be construed so as to establish
such result unless its Intention so to do is 80 clear
that other fair construction can be gwen to 1t,
and II Is insisted that upon proper construction
on OF o 10 ass nj rsten arsne ~ ~ 70
bridge. IL Is said that none or the acts relating
TO post roads simply and none OF the purposes Of
the Post once Department require UNDER
stood to affect the various roads OF the country
made post roads and 'lawfnl' for carrying the
should be maintained as they were. and that the
courts OF the country, the only tribunals ut to
ascertain Sucn D ldct, sHOuiu uOb inquire WucCuer
these roads are lawfully built, and order
them abated or improved II not so. 1t
s further contended that the Bridge act
IS an exercise OF judicial function, and
therefore unconstitutional II construed TO work
an abatement OF this suit or TO put an end to the In
quiry az to the questions involved The controversy
Is one arising between citizens Of dinerent States
and it arises under the constitution and laws OF the
United States. 1t IL, consequently, ono to be de.
cided by the courts and not by Congress. The ques
ton Is whether the Clinton bridge Is to be SO built
as to be material obstruction to the navigation Of
the Mississippi river specially injurious TO the plain
t the Court Is to inquire II 1t Is so built 1t is
alegal question, purely and simply. 1t Itinvolves an
inquiry Into disputed question OF fact which can
be nty made only by court OF justice, where the
testimony Is given under the sanction or an oatn,
and where a cross-eXamlnation OF witnesses may be
had. To ascertain and determine such question Is
in no sense a legislative act. IL is not q question
involving new rule to govern parties,
but merely the finding Of disputed fact between
TWO litgants. In conclusion 1t is argued that the
act Is not regulation OF commerce. 1t simply reg
uates the price to be charged for carrying the mails.
The regulation OF commerce, According to Chief
Justice Marshall is to preserve the rules by which
commerce is to be carried on. The appellees main-
tam that as the bridge is made lawful by the act OF
Congress IT Is not nuisance for 1t cannot be law.
ful structure and nuisance at the same time. The
positions OF the appellant c0ntrOverted length
T. d. Lincoln for appellant. Enoch Totten for ap-
pelleeS