The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1878-03-16
nd 45,l7l4 cubic yards were

ana 45,l7l4 cubic yards were
dredged from the inside harbor
BY the act entitled can act max.
ing appropriation for the repair, pre-.
servatlon and completion of certain
public works in rivers and harbors.
and for other purposes, approved
March 3, 1915, there was appropri-
ated to be expended under the di.
rection of the Secretary of War, Tor
the repair, pres rvation and com
pletion Of the public works herein,
after named, viz: For dredging the
inside harbor of Duluth, S35 900"
In the report of the chief engineer
for the year 1875, it is further stated.
"The appropriation of s35, 900
made in the river and harbor bill,
approved MIrch 3, 1875, restricts
the application OF that sum to dredg-
1n4r sl>.- .->e:<1~ ha-,l o-~l A.,
the present fiscal year it is pro
posed to continue the dredging on
the anchorage ground.
"The north pier Of the canal
which was not built by the United
| States, Is In very precarious state.
owing to its being undermined.
The estimated cost of the present
urgent repairs is $4,000, and as
every year some repairs are neces.
sary, an appropriation of $4,000 fol
this purpose is needed"
And in the act of August |, 1875
there is the following paragraph:
"For the Improvement of the har.
Dor at Duluth, Minnesota, fifteen
thousand dollars. Said appropria
tion is made upon the express con.
! dltion that it shall be without pref
udlce to either party in the suit now
pending between the State of Wis
consin, plaintiff, and the city of Du
luth and the Northern Pacific rail
road company defendants"
The hostility OF Superior City and
OF the State OF Wisconsin could noI
avail to defeat the appropriation
bat as this suit was then pending
the clause that it should be withou
prejudice to any one in the suit was
inserted.
It was not needed. The Congress:
of the United States had themselves
before this adopted, recognized, and
taken charge of this work. 1t had
placed it on precisely the same
ground, and provided for it in the
same paragraph, and out Of the
! same aggregate sum of money, thai
It did the same work at the origina
entrance, as it is aplly called, at the
mouth of the river. 1t had aban
doned the breallwater as a failure
and as unnecessary, in consequence
O. this new end more useful improve
ment. The War Department haG
accepted the charge of the work
had expended the appropriations
made, and had now for several years
made the same regular estimates fol
| this work that it did for all other.
under it's control and management
And though the State OF Wisconsin
bad brought her suit to this court
to abate the work as Q nuisance, anc
Congress was made aware ot the
fac, it still, in 1876, made the usua
appropriation, and the war depart
ment still had the work in charge
! and Congress cautiously said, this
shai prejudice no one in the suit
| but We stall 20 on notwithstanding
AMI continue this system ofimprove
ment.
We do not feel called upon t.
make any argument to prove tha
these sta tutes of the Congress O
the United States and these acts o.
the Executive Department IN carry
ing those statutes into OBJECT, con
stltute an adoption af the canal anc
harbor improvements started by the
city OF Duluth, and taking conclu
sive charge and control of IL. That
they amount to the declaration ot
the federal government that We
here interpose and assert our power
We take upon ourselves the burden
ofthis Improvement, which properly
belongs to US, and that hereafter
this work for the public good is in
our hands and subject to our con.
troll.
If the merest recital of these acts
of Congress, and of the war depart
ment under them, 90 not establish
that proposition, We can have little
hope of making it plain by elaborate
argument.
For can there be any doubt that
such action is within the constitu-
tional power of Congress. 1t is a
power which has been exercised
ever since tina government was or
ganized under the Constitution.
The only question ever raised has
been how far and under what cir.
cumstances the exercise of the
power is exclusive of its exercise
bv the States. And while this
court has maintained in many cases
the right of the States to authorize
structures in and over the avigable
waters of the States, which may
either impede or improve their navi-
CATION, in the absence of any action
Of the general government in the
same matter, the doctrine has been
laid down with unvaryiny uniform.
ity, that when Congress has, by
any expression of its will, occupied
| thn HnlI thnt nnfinn ,unr nnnnlnciuc