Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-08-11
THE SLUICE WAY.
Decision OF Judge Nelson-The Apron Must
snd shall be Preserved.

Decision of Judge Nelson-The Apron Must
snd shall be Preserved.
The GLOBE few days ago gave full re-
port of the arguments in the case Of the
United States against the Mississippi ind
Rum River Boom company, at the con-
clusion of which Judge Nelson took the
matter under advisement and yesterday he
filed the following decision in the case:
United States Circuit Court-Minnesota Dis
trict-The United States VS.. the Mississippi
cation by plaintiff for preliminary iniunc-
tion. VIM. w. Billson, United States dis
triot attorney, for plaintiff; VIM. Lochren
and James Smith, Jr., for defendants.
NELSON, J.. Suit is brought by the govern
ment against the defendants to restrain and
pronibit them from running or permitting any
logs to be run over the Falls of st. Anthony,
or setting adrift from the boom of the defend
ant company any logs which, if let loose and
guided into the channel provided by the gov
ernment. would pass over said fslls and seri-
| ously impair, if not destroy, the gov
eminent structures erected at that point.
A sluiceway through the public works built at
the Falls of St. Anthony, on the Mississippi
river. ample for the passage of logA through it
to point on the river below, is completed &C.
cording to the plan adopted by the officers of
the war department in charge thereof
This slGiceway was necessary to secure the
| safety of the government works erected to pre-
serve the falls and facilitate the transportation
of logs An apron of planked timber had been
constructed over the crest of the falls protect
l. L.
| underlying soft sandstone, when it was ascer-
| tanned that the passage of logs down throug b
| the rapids and over the apron following the
current of the stream, shattered, displaced,
and permanently destroyed sections of the
wood work of which the apron is built.
On March 8, 1879, Congress, in the
river and harbor bill, appropriated $4,000
to build sluioeway through the works,
| which secured the safe water carriage of logs
to point below the falls wit hout injury to the
works previously erected There are no means
provided by the government to direct loose logs
boating down the river from above into the
mouth Of the sluiceway, and the natural cur
rent of the river would carry them throu Oh the
rapids and over the APRON.
| The defendant Boom company is a corpora
tion created by the act of the legislature of the
state of Minnesota. and has constructed it's
booms above the head of Nicollet Island, lying
in the Mississippi river one-hslf mile or more
| above the government sluiceway, and by its
charter is authorized to collect and control,
for the distance of twenty miles above the
Falls of St. Anthony, all lots coming down the
river, and to assort them, and on request of
| the owners, turn them out of ite boOms, but
has no control of the logs for the stance of
one eight of a mile above the sIuiceway.
All logs or nearly so, turned out of the boom
unless guided to the sluiceway, go over the
apron, injuring it as stated. The proper off
| Ger of the government has authorized this suit
at the request of the engineers in charge. and
has made the Boom company, John 3. Prince
and aoratio Houlton, parties defendant. The
last named are owners of logs in the boom
| who, it ia alleged in the bill. have requested
| the Boom company to turn their logs loose and
| take no steps to guide them to the sluiceway,
| but permit them to pass over the apron to the
| serious injury of the work. A motion is made
| on bill of complaint and affidavit for an in
| junction. The Boom company presents an
answer admitting 10 part the allegations of the
| present state of water would injure the gov
| eminent works, and charges that
the suiceway is not built through
| the works, and is not suitable
or sufi ,ient for any practical use as at present
| constructed. John 8. Prince, one Of the de-
| PENDANTS, also admits most of these allega-
| tions by an affidavit read, and charges inter
and expended to preserve the water power at
| the falls, owned by private parties, and for
| their benefit, and that the averments in the
| bill that the works constructed by the United
States are for the improvement of the naviga-
ton of the Mississippi river, or tend to protect
| or preserve the same are untrue, and that the
| government works are an obstruction to the
| free navigation of the river. He also states
| that the sluiceway is inadequate and not suffi-
cient for the purpose designed.
| Such are in substance the matters set by by
the defendants in opposition to the relief asked
| for
The Mississippi river for long distance
above the Falls of st. Anthony, is chiefly
! valuable as an outlet to market
merce has been developed and fostered by the
State of Minnesota and is a source of great
| wealth. The use of the river a highway
| for such purposes is right common to al, sub
| ject to be regulated and controlled by the fed
ersl government, or in absence of any such
regulation by the States where portions of the
river lie wholly within their boundaries.
This common right, however, to run logs down
a river gives no immunity to individuals fol
| injuries committed while using it.
| The government OF the United States in
the interest of this commercial enterprise
inaugurated system of public improvements
at the falls of st. Anthony, and annual appro-
| priations are made in the river and harbor bill
| by Congress. and expended under the direction
Of the secretary of war. The mode Of
| improvement is confded to the direc.
ton of that officer, and whatever
| system is adopted in furtherance of the object
| designated is done under the authority of Con
gresF. The plan suggested by the engineering
officers i'll charge WAS regarded suitable for the
preservation of the Falls of st. Anthony, fol
which the appropriation was made, and TO ia
cilitate the passage of logs from above this falls
| to the river below.
| These improvements were made to protect
| this branch of commerce which, in the opinion
| of Congress- required the preservation of the
| falls. end whether the expenditure of money
appropriated is judicious whether the i'm
| provenents have proved benefit to private
persons is of no i'm portance.
The only questions involved in these litiga-
| lions are:
/. Were the structures lawfully erected?
The authority to make these Improvements
annot be doubtful. The general control pro-
| lection and imrovement Of the navigable rivers
IF the United States in the interest of COM
merce are without the constitutional jnrisdic-
| ton Of Congress.
| Second-Are the Improvements threatened
| With injury or destruotioni
| 1t ia substantially conceded that the acts
| complained of if continued will break up and
destroy the apron erected over the falls, and
he danger apprehended lie of character which
| to guard against would require the expenditure
! If a large sum of money. Such inference with
the control assumed by the federal government
| ,ver this locality cannot be permitted, and the
! parties threatening the safety of the public