National Republican., 1883-11-07
THE SUPREME COURT.
A Number Of Interesting Opinions Delivered
Yesterday.
List OF the Important Cases Finally Dis
posed Of-Tho Court Proceedings.

magnitude of the interests involved. Tho
history Of the litigation may bo briefly stated
as follows In 1867 the Now York Bridge
company was incorporated for the purpose Of
constructing suspension bridge across the
East river, between New York city and
Brooklyn. This bridge was required to be
not less than 40 feet above high tide, and TO
be SO built as not to obstruct the navigation
of the river.
In 1869 congress passed an act authorizing
the construction of the proposed bridge upon
conditions that the secretary of war should
first examine the plans therefor, and satisfy
himself that the bridge, when finished, would
not obstruct, impair or injuriously modify
the navigation of the river" The secretary
of war appointed n commission of engineers
to investigate tho subject, and on tho nine
teenth Of June, 1869, upon the receipt of their
report, he directed the chief of engineers to
notify the bridge company of his approval of
the plan and location OF the bridge, subject
to certain specified conditions which 1t is not
necessary here to state. The company then
began work on the bridge and continued it
until 1870, when an act of the state legislature
was passed providing for the completion of
the structure by the cities of New York and
Brooklyn.
On the nineteenth of May, 1876, nearly
seven years after the approval of tho plan of
of the proposed bridge by tho secretary of
war, Abraham Miller, warehouseman of
Brooklyn, began suit in the United States
circuit court for the southern district of New
York for the purpose of obtaining q decree
that the bridge, as contemplated and erected,
was without lawful authority; that it was a
nuisance, and that it should be enioined
When the case came to o final hearing before
Judge Blatchford the complainant's bill was
dismissed with costs, whereupon he took an
appeal to this court. The argument for the
appellant was made here by William H.
Arnoux, of New York, who began with q
statement of the facts and o review of the
evidence, going to show that the bridge as
constructed does obstruct the navigation of
the East river, and does, therefore, damage the
business of the complainant by virtually pre-
venting certain class of ships from reaching
his warehouse.
Mr.. Arnoux was going on to show that the
bridge was, comparatively speaking, of little
use to the cities of New York and BROOKLYN,
and was rather curiosity than real conve-
nience when Justice Gray, who seemed to
think that these considerations were irrele-
want, called counsePs attention to one of the
vital points of the case by saying III did not
quite understand your position, Mr.. Arnoux,
with regard to the action of the secretary of
war. Am l right in supposing that the secre-
tary of war was authorized by congress to
determine the question whether the bridge
would or would not be an obstruction to nayi-
CATION, that he did determine that question:
that he approved the plan, and notified the
company to proceed with the work 2"
Mr.. Arnoux. "Your honors statement of
the facts is in substance correct 1t was not
my intention to take up that point of tho
case at this stage Of my argument, but, of
curse, ii the court desires it l will proceed to
discuss it now"
Justice Gray Caughing). "Oh no! Not on
my account. l have no doubt that New
York lawyer knows best how to arrange the
points of his own argument"
Mr.. Arnoux then proceeded to cite adjudged
cases for the purpose of showing that any
thing which in any degree interfered with
the free navigation of a river had been held
by the courts TO be an obstruction and nui-
sance. He was just stating tho points of
Blanchard vs.. The Western Union Telc.
graph company, in which the courts
held that submarine cable was an
obstruction to navigation and nui-
sance, when Justice Miller interrupted him
by saying: "What is the use of wasting time
in arguing the question whether an obstruc-
tion not authorized by congress or by n legs-
lature would be nuisance or not? That is
not the question here. Tho question is, what
has congress said or done with regard to this
subjectY
Mr. Arnoux. Congress has said that this
bridge shall not "obstruct, impair, or in
iuriously modify the navigation OF the river"
and l am trying to show your honor what in
furious modification of the navigation of the
river has been held to be- Anything which
interrupts or hinders the passage of vessels
Of any kind or compels change in the man
agement of any vessel is an obstruction to FREQ
navigation.
The Chief Justice. Then the bridge must
be built so high from pier to pier that no ves-
sci ever constructed can touch it with her
loftiest spars?
Mr.. Arnoux. The bridge should not be
built so as to virtually prevent the passage of
two-hfths OF the tonnage and one-eighth of
the number of vessels entering the port
Justice Miller. What would be the use of n
bridge 80 high that nobody could get up to it?
Mr.. Arnoux. In the case of the state of
Pennsylvania against the Wheeling Bridge
company it was held by this court that the
bridge was an obstruction to navigation, al
though only seven out of the 230 steamboats,
on the river had smokestacks high enough TO
touch it. Your honors then said the fact that
the bridge constitutes nuisance is to be ascer-
tanned by measurement. If the obstruction
exists, it is nuisance. This court further
said, in discussing the argument of the
greatest good to tho greatest number, at is
said that the interests of commerce REQUIRE
navigable water to bo crossed, and that in
such case the enquiry should be whether tho
benefit conferred on commerce by the cross
route is notgreater than the injury done. In
the case of the King VS.. Sir John Morris, it
was held that the injury cannot be balanced
against the benefits secured. This court,
therefore, decided that the Wheeling bridge
was an obstruction, and that the plaintiff was
entitled to an INDUCTION.
Justice Harlan. In the Chicago bridge case
we authorized the city of Chicago to stop the
passage OF ships altogether, except at certain
hours.
Mr.. ArnouX. In that case congress had not
in anyway legislated on the subject
Justice Harlan. Would you demand that
the bridge should be so high as not TO inter-
tere with any ship that might be constructed?
Mr.. Arnoux lhesitatingly). / should not
care to put myself on record as making quite
uch statement as that but
The chief justice (interrupting). "You do
ay, nevertheless, that tho decision of the
ecretary of war that the bridge does not con-
titute an obstruction TO navigation. Is TO
ave no effect as against tho fact that II
oesY
Mr.. Arnoux. 81 say, your honor, that Il
IS not for anyone, but the judiciary to give
construction TO law of congress. 1t isn't
given to the secretary of war TO say this is
so and nobody shall gainsay it," Mr. Ar.
noux then proceeded to argue with frequent
Interruptions from the bench), that the
decision of the secretary of war; with
regard to the question whether the bridge
was an obstruction to navigation or not
was not bar to judicial inquiry concerning
the facts. If the bridge had been built Ave
feet above the water, instead of 1875, and the
secretary of war had declared that it did not
obstruot navigation, this court would not
have been deprived of its right to say that il