The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1882-01-14

| We have received from Attorney. General
| Mccartney copy of his brief and argument
tor the defendants in the case Of VIM l.. Euse
ct al. VS.. Joseph o. Glover ct al. in the United
States Circuit Court for the northern district
OF Illinois
| This Is u bill IN chancery filed by the com.
| plainants against the defendants as Canal
| Commissioners OF the State of Illinois, alleg.
! ing that they are engaged IN the business OF
cutting ice and transporting and selling the
same IN southern cities, and that they have in
constant use six steamboats, and thirty to forty
barges ranging from l25 to 900 tons each in
capacity. That the locks and dams construct.
ed by the State upon the Illinois river are an
obstruction to navigation by their crafts afore.
said, and that the collection of tolls for pass.
ing through SAID locks Is In violation Of the
second paragraph OF Sec. TO- Art. |, of the
Constitution of the United States, which pro-
hlbts the imposition of tonnage by any State
without the consent OF Congress; that while
such locks and dams have created an addition
al depth OF water, 1t IS not beneficial to com
claimants, as most OF their shipments are in
the spring OF the year when the waters are
high.
To this hill general demurrer was filed by
the Attorney General, which presents the
whole subject 10 the court us a question Of law
as to the right of the state to improve this riv-
er in the manner stated tor the purpose of and
ing navigation and to impose and collect tolls
The Acknowledgement IN his argument con-
tends that the ordinance of 1887 was su-
perseded and repealed by the adoption of the
constitution of the United States, citing the
case of Pollard V. Hogan ct al. 3 Howard 2l2,
approved in Strader ct al. V. Graham, 10 How.
ard, 50, followed and approved also in the re
cent case of Pound v Turck, % |. S. 459, cit
ing also numerous other cases The the Ordi-
nance of 1857 being no longer in force, there Is
no prohibition IN any event against ilnprOv-
ing the Illinois river in the manner 1t has
been done by the State by locks and dams as
alleged, nor is the imposition of tolls as
charged in violation of the Constitution Of the
United States. On this point the Attorney
General cites the case of Palmer V. Cuyahoga
County, 3 Mclean 22G, and numerous other
authorities.
The principal question with whlchi the de
PENDANTS have to contend in this case, and
which from the brief of the Acknowledgement
does not appear to be very clearly settled by
the federal courts, is that of the right of the
State to impose tolls upon those who navigate
the river the State has thus improved.
The question of jurisdiction over navigable
streams in State as between the State and the
United States has lately received the attention
of the United States Supreme Court in the
case of Mobile County v. Kimball, reported In
vol. /, D. 4G2 Of Advance Sheets of the l. :.
R'corts But this case, while 1t is decisive of
q 7stons not before fully settled, does not de-
termne the question of the right to impose
tolls by a State. THIS question, however IL
would seem cannot escape being fully settled
in the determination of the case at bar.-Chi-
caqO LegdL AdC.