Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1877-10-31
BEEF SLOUGH AHEAD.
Opinion Of JUDI. DrummOnd In the
Great Chippewa River Navigation

wv" N"PPc"" N'ct N"fis"iiV"
I Case.
Judge Drummond prepared yester
day his decision in the important case
| of the United States VS. the Beef
Slough Manufacturing, Booming Log
/ Driving and Transportation Company,
and others. This is suit pending in
the circuit couu of the United States
/ for the western district Of Wisconsin,
and was heard few days since by
Judge Drummond in Chicago
THE OPINION Is As FOLLOWS
This was bill filed in consequence
of distractions alleged to have been
placed in the Chippewa river in the
state of Wisconsin, and particularly in
Beef Slough-n navigable branch of the
river which leaves the main river about
Is miles from the Mississippi, and flows
into the latter river about 9 miles be-
low the mouth of the Chippewa. The bill
alleges that the defendants have placed
piers, booms, and other distractions
SO as to substantially close the naviga-
ticn Of Beef Slough, and that they have
imposed and collected tolls from the
owners of lumber and logs floating on
the river, and that they have occasion
ally so filled the channel of the Chippc-
wa with logs rs to seriously impair its
navigation. The object of the bill is to
prevent any further Instructions to the
navigation of the river, and to remove
those already placed there A dcmur-
rer has been interposed to the bill, and
! the question is whether the demurrer is
well taken. think it is. FIT be con
coded that the river Chippewa is n nav
igable river--lrce to the citizens of the
United States without tax or impost,
either by virtue of the acts of congress
or of the provision of the constitution of
Wisconsin, can the United States III con
sequence Of the existence Of one or both
of these facts, file bill in this court To
enforce this general right on the part of
the citizens ofthe United States without
an act of congress authorizing ii 10 hc
| denc?
/ The authoritics seem to establish the
! principle that there IN lst be special
! legislation to that effect before such
bill can be filed Congress undoubtcd
/ " has the right under the authority
conferred on it by the constitution to
declare that all the rivers flowing into
the Mississippi, and in fact nayigable,
shall be SO in law-and to prescribe
rules and regulations rs to their navig
ability irrespective of the authority of
the states within whose limits such rivers
may be found. And if it appeared by
the bill that congress had in relation TO
the Chippewa river prescribed any such
rule or regulation, notwithstanding the
acts of the defendants might have been
authorized 10y the state of Wisconsin, ii
would then be binding on this court,
and if this case were brought within the
principle Of the United States against
Duluth, | Dillon, 400. 1t would per
haps be sutlcicnt--but the allegations
contained in this bin do not bring il
within the rule there laid down. In
that case it was alleged that congress
had made appropriations for the inn
provement Of the mouth Of the St
Louis river so rs to keep open
n channel between Lake Superior and
Superior Bay; that the agents and
officers of the government had been ac-
tually employed in making the improve
mcnt for some years, and that the de
PENDANTS were engaged in cutting a
canal near Duluth, the result OF
which would be to render the efforts of
the United States to protect and deepen
the natural channel ut the mouth Of the
st. Louis river Intellectual. Mr. Justice
Miller held in that case that the facts
warranted the United States in fling n
bill to protect and render etlcctual the
the improvement being made under its
authority. There it was distinctly al
legged that the act being done by de-
fcrfdant interfercd with the proposed
improvement Of the United States. Now
in this case, the allegations Of the bill do
not reach that point For we must ad-
NIT, in the absence Of special legislation
on the subject by congress, by appro-
priations for improvements or other
wise, that the states have the right to
some extent to impair the navigation Of
rivers actually navigable, and declared
so by law, as by the construction Of
bridges and various other improvem cnts
r9Jmircd for The accommodation Of the
public.
1t is alleged that congress has estab-
lishcd II post road upon and over the
river, and has appropriated and eSpend-
ed moneys III the surveys and improve
ment Of the navigation, but there Is no
specific statement as to the character of
the Improvements, when they have
been, or are proposed to be made, and
whether or not the Instructions which
have been placed in the river or III
branches, by the defendants, would
necessarily interfere with the improve
ments and the navigation proposed by
congress. In this respect | think the
allegations of the bill are insufficient.
The bill also alleges that there are GER