The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-06-24
BAYOU IT. JOHN.
THE eAHoNBELEF CANAL AND NAvt
aArseN COMPANY.
its Authority - Collect Teiis f. em YES.
seis Using the Hayea ANA
canal Maintained,

Canal Maintained.
At The June term ef the Supreme court.
was rendered
nv NH. JusttGH tn BttAF6i
NJ, Ggss-Garondelet tanal and Navigation
Company, appellants, ts. Nattisse. Paf4ef,
master and owner Of schooner fietefla Np
lAnpal ftom The Fourth Justices Court
parish VI Orleans, as
Fiainfifr claims rfuin defendant NJ 35 fpt
toll upon the aaineastfed tonnage " the
sehoDhef Victoria No, z. ft,t q pass gtaitea ~
said schooner put II nayop ~ John, .,t,r
Defendant deales the right of piaihtiH to
receiver for this .
i That tba bayou ST.. John Is a natural
naviaatle sttea,n enptying Into Lake pgnt-
nhatFtain and connected with the cur OF Mex
loo, atl IL public property. free ~ ths use .H
Ill aifisa,ia III this and either States Of the
| tfsion who have natural right to. navigate
sail stream with theit vessels. and to iii6ef
the same 10 tile banks thereof,
y, That by the act ct Congress admitting
Louisiana az State into the Union, II was
,nade, ali express prBpiae and condition that
ths HiVat Mississippi and the itaeigalla
rivers and waters leadlha. into the Same
and into the Gulf If Mckee, should
be forever common highways. ffhe t9
The inhabitants Of all the States, and
Territories If the United States without tolls
~ duties therefor imposed hV said state
And that ~. sattign b251 ef the REVISED sta
tutes Ut tie United States. all nafigable rivers
and waters IN the former Territories of Or
leans and Louisiana are made forever public
highways
4. That the charge sought to he collected is
duty ef tpnhaas Imposed by the State Of
Louisiana without the consent Of Congress.
and Is within the prohibition contained in 81
mitch Of section 10. article |. United States
constitution, as provides that ''Ne State shall.
without the consent ofGonetess. lay any duty
| Of tonnage
Ing its demand, plaintiff has appealed,
In the plsadihgs atia the printed araiiz
tnetits, two principal questions are pre-
|. Yves bayou st John q havgable stream
before II was improved BY plaintiff and those
to whptf plaintiff has stthtaadeaf
g., II Ii was fiaNigable, has Congress author
isea The eolleetieh Of tolls to pass III and out
Hsgpn HI. John emntiss Into Lake rentz
ehaftfaih, In the latter part Of the eighteenth
and the commencement III the nineteenth
| centuries theteswas a sand bar at the mouth
| Of the bayon, and, at times. the water was 81
low on The bar that even n canoe had tu be
| dragged over IT, At that dath the bayou was
| not, DC II now ia. linked by q canal TO the city
| If New Orleans Il thus remained an useless
aftnfy between the lake and the city. until
| the Baron de Uafundaet ordered the opening
| w IHp HHllHt VI WltlFn his name WpG given.
| The pfaibt If the Spanish Governor was but
| partly executed under bis administration.
| and when Louisiana hnnat1n All American
| Territory II was only with the smallest bafHs
| that any one could venture ut the few inches
" water which had htHh drawn from the
bayou into the iheensidefable canal dug by
| the BatuhH order Except at long intervals
and exceptional periods the entrance from the
| lake into the bayou. fiubl the bayou into The
canal wac then ithpHssable for such schopnats
/ "a IL AL
| Iii nfter 10 complete The work begun under
| de Uafuhhhlet the territorial council. in 1906
| granted d charter to the Orleans Navigation
Company. empowering that company 10 i'm;
| prove Bayou Ht John, and. Under specified
conditions, To claim and collect tolls from The
| boats and fessela entering said bayou
| In 1891 thu Legislature passed a resolution
requiring The, Attorney General 10 issua Out
Of The First District Court d seifs fatias "
ascertain the constitutional validity ~ said
eonpahy's charter and whether. If aoiistittiz
tianal that charter had not been violated by
| the company
In obedience 10 that resolution suit was
| filed III the name IT the State against the Or
leans Navigation Company. The trial 81 that
| memorable suit was marked by n display III
| knowledge and talent which would have en-
listed the attention Of the ableHt inrists If
any ago OF State. The eonstitut onalitY 81
| the charter was vtidinated aud atAnpwl=
edged, II NJ, 300.
In the report Of that cause we have found a
plain recital Of the obstacles which the com.
| nany had 10 remove. and, from the MANY
| pages If that recital. wn uiutn at random
"unti the company had displaced the Oh.
stfurtluhs at the mouth of bayou ~, John
Vessels frequently. when loaded with pitch
tar and cattle. were obliged to throws theil
| paigoes overheard. The iii
| habitantH Of the other eide Ut the lake were
znmet I'll, e. t month at home waiting I,, for J,
boats drawing from twelve 10 fourteen inches
| were for DAYS aground. A
number Of barges were kept expressly for
loading a vessel Of twenty tons was 100. and
the cargo was often damaged.
| Those who. before the improvements. trans
have paid double the duties esaeted by The
company for the advantages derived from
those improvements u tn 1906 there
were two or three hehoonerH In the basin 81
| The canal and 1t was 81 filled up that they
remained there two OF three years before they
could get out. The navigation had
| then entirely eeaHrd, except in extraordinary
high water, Tho toll claimed by
plaintiff IL lesa than such vessels had 10 pay
| 10 unload their freight The tapairt
| Of the danagea done by n rrrpHaae cost thu
| company VA, 900. by storm. E25nnp"
In that case aa IN this. IL was urged that
the toll authorized by defendants charter
had not been laid with the consent Of Con.
| EIetG' ~ iiltt hhJN'lhpH tHia court answered.
| That, IN such matters. the constitution Of Tho
| United Statea does not require an express
| consent from Congress-, and an implied one
was to be inferred from the repeated nets 81
that body. adding to tho means provided By
| the territorial Legislature for tho completion
| of tho intended improvements,
| That all the nnvgahla rivers in tho Stat
are public highways Ia not disputed. nor cat
Il be disputed that such highways arc FREQ Il
tho eitisena of the United Statea, without any
btIt n, tina
of tho congressional statute. when and under
what circumstances Ia river to be consider
etl navigablep Is IL nayigable though closed
nj iia mouth and closed Mt ita source, though
full of Atumps and iogaR Ia II navigablt
when. to cross It's ten or twelve sand bare. thu
cargo OF a vessel has to be thown overheard
when those bars impede the course Of even
the hunters canoe2 Is 1t navigable when
ever. ut aomo point. 1t contains II sufficient
quantity Of atagnant water to floht any bark
though. MS u prisoner In a dungeon, that
bark can only move from u restricted centre
! to an impossible obstruction. beyond and
Ina ma