The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1886-02-03
THE STATEN ISLAND BRIDGE.
ARGUMENTS By HON. couRTLAND PARKER.
The Hearing Before the Committee ON Rpa-
rian Rights In the Assembly Chamber.


don't know that should be heard
am here in the employ of no one. speak
entirely of my own motion. But the sub
ject, as / view it, is momentous to New
Jersey. Born, bred and expecting always
SO long as / live, to be Jerseyman,
yield to no one in regard for her prospect
ty. And, therefore, seeing this discus
sion to be likely to be all on one side,
have made bold to come here and seek to
state to the committee the course of
thought with which the question should
be regarded.
What is the question: Not whether the
Baltimore and Ohio is not great corpor-
alton not whether we should drive her
away from us, as one gentleman has said
We want her here. We wish her to cross
the State and seek way to New York
city. But we like her so we'll that we
wish her to stop here. If she has ware
houses to build we wish them on our soil.
If she penetrates the great West and
makes it tributary to the metropolis, all
right. Let her do as others have done
and are doing-let her do as we have en-
couraged them to do. We have brought
the Pennsylvania here, and then the Erie,
and then the Central, and then the Della
ware and Lackawanna. They come to
us; they cross us; they stay with u.s.
That is what we ask of the Baltimore and
Ohio.
But these railroad companies came to
us; they sought permission of our Legis-
lature; they respected our rights. What
| does the Baltimore and Ohio do? They
see by the statute book and by the con-
duct of the last Legislature that this
State is not disposed to give up her very
| property to foreign corporation, nor to
change policy long established driving
cherished navigation from our shores,
and so they go to Congress and seek to
| get that body to claim authority over the
premises, and then, dexterously, with re-
spectful words aud tone, warn us not to
place ourselves in the way of the laws of
commerce. Again, ask then, what Is
the question This, shall Congress pass a
bill authorizing or directing bridge on
or over the landed property belonging,
not to her citizens, but to the very State
of New Jersey And shall the Legisla-
ture of New Jersey not demonstrate ?
| | said that Congress should pass no
such bill; that the honor of New Jersey
requires that it should not be done; and
at any rate, that New Jersey should pro.
test. For Congress has no such right and
the will of New Jersey has been expressed
against it.
Congress has no such right. The Fed
eral Government has no right except
what the constitution gives it..
Art. X. "The powers not delegated to
the United States by the constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are re-
served to the States respectively, or to
the people,
Look then through the constitution for
any power to the United States to erect a
bridge or authorize its erection.
Look through all adjudicated cases for
the exercise of such a power
The power of Congress is 10 say what
bridges shall not be erected. In that way
(only so far as regards bridges) it regu-
lates commerce.
But there Is no power to erect bridges
That is only for the States wherein they
are.
II the stream is only in one State, that
State has the exclusive power. If the
stream bounds two States, then each
State has the exclusive power of erection
up to the State limits, unless treaty carries
1t farther
Judge Swayne, in Q Wallace, sums up
the case and declares directly that the
power to erect bridge is esclusige In the
State governments.
He did it no more clearly than Chief
Justice Marshall in Gibbons & Ogden.
When he mentions ferries he settles
this question. The United States can
authorize no ferry The State on each
side of the stream can.
The Colony had the power. The State
succeeded to it. 1t did not give it away
when it authorized Congress exclusively
ito regulate commerce. That is to
make rules for its carrying on--not new
paths for it, not railroads, not canals, not
bridges, not means for 1t, but rules which
shall help it. A law forbidding bridge.
or particular bridge, is such a rule. A
law erecting one is not.
CD. Savage, of New York, in Is Wen
4 dell, 132-133, is strong and clear. cite
this case for the benefit of New Workers.
1t is their law as we'll as ours.
The bridge requires the support of our
territory-or it crosses it--and our terri
tory extends upward to the skies. 1t is
not even private property; it is State pro-
perty. Land under this water belongs to
the State.
How can the United States take 1t /?
| How, under the power of eminent domain,
can one sovereignty, though superior,
take the property of another
! The Federal Government own Sandy
Hook. How did they get it That they
had to buy, and then an act of the Legis-
lature gave them Jurisdiction.
Nay, the consent of this State was
deemed necessary in 1904 to the United
States buying land for a beacon.
If this was so, with what pretense can
| the United States now assume to author
| ize bridge on our territory, on the
States own land
1t is corollary from the fact that the
State is sovereign, that its property can
not be taken from her. Much less can a
citizen or citizens be authorized to take it.
There is no such thing as eminent domain
over sovereign. The thing is impossible.
This renders the idea of establishing
the bridge as post road, subterfuge as
it is, and utterly unworthy of the United
States, entirely nugatory.
Can the United States take the land Of
the State for that purpose They may
take that Of an individual, perhaps. But
without cession of territory by the
State, how can they get title or right?
Note Art. II, Sec. s, OF the United
States constitution, where it is stated
that Congress shall have power "to exer-
else legislation over all places purchased
by the consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the same she'll be, for the
erection of forts, magazines, arsenals,
dockyards and other needful buildings"
This being expressed, is not use Of State
property, even for post road, excluded ?
Does not this section forbid the United
States to do what this bill calls for? The
erection of bridge--to make post-road
on the land of the State
| hue kn,y rsnhf "a
case is made still stronger against the
passage of this bill, when the State has
prohibited IT,.
That is what the State has done. The
act of 1878 expressly requires her consent
to any such use of her territory.
It is said-"No, that bridge there,
does not mean bridge that railroad
bridges are not bridges, but 0iaducts.
Such law ! and such etymology! True,
covenant by the State, restricted in its
Interpretation by established rules, 10 the