Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1886-07-01
THE n. 6 o. sH1Des
The Susquehamnn River Fridge
said TO Obstruct Navigation.

Shtutuays q bHl inorB sun.
Tho circuit court, Judge Fisher. yester-
day began the trial Of tho suit III equity Of
Samuel o. Rowland of Port Deposit, Md,
against the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Com
pAny 10 restrain tide erection of Tie bridge
Of the Philadelphia branch Of the baltimore
Ohio railroad OYER tho Snsuuehnnnn
river, on tia grounds ihat Il ls m ob5trne-
ton In navigation NJ sara. Marshall and
Hall appear for the plaintiff, md Messrs,
Z. j. d. Cross and Hugh Il. Bond, Jr.. for
tho rnilrond company. Tho bridge has
been completed. The bill alleges that Mr..
Rowland is engaged In the manufacture
and sale of lumber and shingles at Port
Deposit. The greater part of the lumber
used by him comes from the southern
states, especially North Carolina, and Is
brought by water 10 Port Deposit. The
ontire business depends upon the free
navigation OF the Susquehanna river
from the Chesapeake bay. The vessels
In which tho lumber Is brought from
North Caroltna must be large and strong
enough for tho voyage through the Chesa-
peake bay and the rough and dangerous
navigation Of the south Atlantic eoast.
From July 1st 1882, 10 July lst 1893, the
complainant receipted 1861, ,79T feet of lum-
ber, brought from North Carolina In 38
vessels, with an average capacity Of 1GS3-5
tons. This does not include shingles.
HAvh pull lSti 1000 W July lsl, 1864, no re-
eetved 4,7l2,TT5 feet Of lumber from the
sanie soitrss nrsiS pGss1ls, and for tho sun
sequent yenr the business was about the
snme The Baltimore n Ohio COMPANY, by
authority OF the net of 1882, and OF the
bonrd Of public works, Is erecting bridge
across the snsqnehannn river, passing over
Watson's Island 80 rs TO give only 30 feet
Of clearance above high tide for the
lower members of the bridge, with
a piRnF ohanlnrp nj
east channel Of tho Susquehanna
river, two clear openings OF $50 feet over
the west channel, and the company IL re-
quired TO keep steam tug or towboat at
the bridge nt all times during tho season Of
open navigation TO tow all vessels requiring
1t under the bridge. The complainant
charges that tho construction of the bridge
with the hight of 30 feet will effectually
prevent the passage up and down the Sus-
quehanna river under tho bridge Of vessels
OF the capacity Of those used In his lumber
business, aud that the bridge will prevent
the passage Of three-fourths Of the vessels
trading with Port Deposit. Even II other
vessels can make arrangements for lowering
their mnsts TO pass under the bridge, such an
eSpcdient will be practically impossible with
vessels loaded with lumber. The complain
ant Is informed that the bridge can be- made
OF sufficient hight ny the expenditure OF
little more than sl00000. He charges that
tho board OF public works transcended tho
powers vested in II by the act Of the legisla-
ture by giving its assent to the plan Of
bridge without n draw, which necessarily
impodes free navigation OF the river. The
act provided that the bridge should not i'm
pede navigation. 1t Is also alleged that m
net Of Congress is necessary TO authorize
any bridge that will interfere with navlga-
tlon.
The nnswer of tho Baltimore 4 Ohio Rail.
road Company doDles all the allega-
tions Of the BILL, nnd maintains that the
bridge Is not nm impeachment to navigation.
The masts OF vessels that will not pass
under II can be lowered ut small expense
and trouble. II is also asserted that 1Ir.
Rowland knew OF the projected bridge, and
he Is now estopped from complaining. The
trial was not concluded.