Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-05-18
An Important Decision In
Their Favor by Attorney
General Miller
ON THE BRIDGE QUESTION.
The Navigation of Inland Waters
Must Not Be 0bStructed
BY LOW CONSTRUCTED BRIDGES.
The Matter of Supervision in the War
Departments Hands.
EXACT RIGHTS OF THE GOVERNMENT
ESPECIAL TELEGRAM TO THE DISPATCH ]

ESPECIAL TELEGRAM TO THE D1sPATCH.1
WASHINGTON, May 1.-THE Attorney
General has Just rendered an opinion, in
response to the request of the Secretary of
War, which is destined to be far-reaching
in its effects upon the commercial and mari
time interests of the country and which has
created something of a sensation in the War
Department, especially in the United States
Engineer Corps, which, under the Secretary,
will have the carrying out of the new policy
required by the decision of the Attorney
General
From the foundation of the Government
down to the present time, it has always
been an open question how far the authority
of the United States Government extended
in the matter of distractions to navigation
interests by the bridging or otherwise
abridging the channels of inland rivers or
harbors within the jurisdiction of munich
palities like Chicago, Milwaukee, Buffalo,
Cleveland and other like maritime ports on
the great lakes, and in cases of many of the
seaport cities such as New York and Bos-
ton. Up to this time the Engineer Corps
has encouraged the policy of ''hands off, in
all matters pertaining to any control what
ever by the General Government of inland
waterways like the Chicago river, and the
city of Chicago has built bridgey when and
where it pleased at different points on the
river without in any way considering the
Government a party in interest
Chicago Brought to Time.
Now, however, that city will, it seems, be
required to build its bridges in such a way
as not TO unreasonably or unnecessarily OBJ
struct the free passage of not only its local
tr,T he Fnr
we'll Last year the city began the con-
struetion of a low drawbridge across the
south branch of the Chicago river at Canal
street, and had put in the pier and super
structure thereof when the vessel and COM
mercial interests directly affected made
strong protests to the city authorities
against the construction of the bridge upon
the plans as made by the City Engineer.
Those protests were made by the leading
steamship lines running between Buffalo,
Cleveland and other ports in the great lakes
and Chicago and by the immense elevator,
coal and lumber interests located above the
Canal street bridge. The city paid little
attention to these protests, but proceeded
with the construction on the original plans,
which plans, the vessel men claimed, made
the bridge a serious and unnecessary OBJ
struction to the very large commerce pass
ing the point.
An Appeal to Washington.
They then, in January last, appealed to
the Secretay of War, through their Wash
ington counsel, ex-senator Conger, who
argued before the Secretary that under the
provisions of the river and harbor act of
September, 1890, it was the duty of the Sec
retary, if any bridge or other structure was
found upon examination by him to be seri-
ous or an unreasonable obstruction to navi-
cation interests to cause the same to be
changed in plan or entirely removed and re-
built upon plans which would give the least
possible danger and trouble to vessels pass
ing through the draws or under such bridge.
The vessel men scored q victory by the
report of Captain Marshall, United States
engineer in charge at Chicago, who, under
instructions from the War Department, in
vestigated the whole matter on the ground,
hearing both interests in full That officer
reported that the bridge, as far as con-
structed, was an unreasonable and unneces-
sary obstruction to the large commercial in
terests, citing the fact in his report to the
Secretary that over 1000 vessels passed this
point in the year 1890, and that the largest
elevator, coal and lumber interests in the
city were directly affected by the delays and
dangers to transportation caused by the
narrowness of the channel provided for in
the draws of the bridge.
The Question OF supervision.
Captain Marshall, in his report, raised the
question of the results which would neces-
sarily follow, in his opinion, if the Govern
ment assumed the right of supervising the
construction of bridges built bv the city of
Chicago, claiming that it would necessarily
follow that the Government must also con-
troll the matter Of dock lines, sewers or other
possible distractions to the navigability of
such channels and must also assume the
task of deepening, widening and improving
generally such channels to meet the neces-
stiles of commerce, things now assumed
wholly by the municipality.
General Casey, Chief of Engineers, warm
ly indorsed these propositions, he having
for years been a very earnest opponent of
the situation which now seems must follow
from the decision of the Attorney General
General Grant, the Assistant Secretary of
War; when the matter was submitted to
him, at once fully appreciated the grave i'm
portance of the ruling of the department
upon the matter and sought the Attorney
Generals opinion that the whole question
might be looked into exhaustively from the
law as well as the administrative stand
point.
The Attorney General holds that under
the law it is the duty of the Secretary to
exercise a general supervision of the inland
waterways or harbors upon which travels
the commerce Of the country, where the
same arc clearly navigable highways, to the
extent that no unreasonable or unnecessary
distractions shall be placed thereon by any
local municipal authority, but that such
supervision need not necessarily clash with
the usual police or harbor powers of such
municipal authorities over the channels or
waterways within the control of cities or
towns
The policy Of Congress during later years
has been one of growing tendency to extend
the power of the General Government over
harbOrS and rivers. tributary to the high
WAYS of commerce, and the moving of Chi
cagO and other vessel interests has resulted
in formulation for the first time of the
exact rights and authority of the Govern
ment in such cases, where heretofore it has
been an open and much fought over ques-
tion.
1t is looked upon by the leading men in
terested in maritime commercial matters as
n great victory for the vessel men of the
whole country. 1t will undoubtedly open
up a very large and new field of vexatfous
work for the Secretary of War and the
Engineer Corps, and for that reason the
Attorney Generals decision is not much