Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-06-29
OUR MAIL POUCH.
The Chamber and the Ri

The Chamber and the Rivermen.
To the Editor of The Dispatch:
In your published proceedings Of the do
ings of the Chamber of Commerce yesterday
I am put on record as the minority member
of the River and Harbor Committee, ana op-
posed to the proposed change in, the national
laws permitting individuals or companies to
appear by private attorneys before tho
United States Courts. OF course, the entire
question revolved about the matter of the
filling in OF the river channels, ETC., and to
appear to be opposed to apparently the just
demands of the navigators of our rivers is
very unenviable position for me. 1 think,
had the proceedings of the chamber been
more fully reported, I would not have been
called upon to enter protest regarding the
statement as it concerns myself
Divested OF all extraneous considerations,
the question before the Chamber was simply
whether to endorse the recommendation OF
the committee or to leave the matter as the
law now provides. viz, informations and
procedures for violation of the United
States law governing the rivers, to go
through the United States District Attorney,
or, as was desired by the committee, that the
procedures be open to attorneys employed
by private parties etc.
1t was explained by the United States Dis
trfct Attorney, who was present py invita-
tion Of the President OF the Chamber for the
purpose of answering questions, that in the
Federal courts there was no such thing in
the United States practice OF assessing
costs on either parties bringing suit before
the United States Court, that the Govern
ment shouldered all these charges, ETC., etc.
The Chamber was further informed that it
was to the interest of the United States Dis
trict Attorney to institute suits, as his fees
were increased with the conviction Of par
ties offending against the United States
statutes. and, therefore, that every induce
ment was offered the United States Attor-
ney to perform his duties.
had, previous to the meeting yesterday,
only general idea of the duties of the
United States Attorney in matters Of this
kind, but based my objection to the report
of the majority on the ground that in pre-
vious report to the Chamber the same COM
mittee had ur2ed the appointments by the
State of Pennsylvania of port wardens or
commissioners to look after the rights of
navigators, as we'll as to define the limits be-
yond which it would be be illegal to fill out
the shores of the rivers, etc.
l am quite convinced that the United
States has ample authority to establish the
channel line of our rivers fix the height and
span OF bridges, ETC., but so far as concerns
the privileges of the banks Of streams, such
as permitting their use for railway
and manufacturing purposes, that is
question for the State, or the towns
and cities acting under the sanction Of
State laws to regulate for themselves.
The point here referred to was discussed at
some length in report presented and ap-
proved by the chamber two years ago. But
shall not go into particulars.
would desire to say now, SO as to be cor
rectly reported. that I think while q part
of the recent United States laws is very
desirable and important, that other parts Of
the same act may be unconstitutional.
The subject is complex, and I think it
would be we'll that an understanding should
pc mad between the State and the United
states authorities regarding their respective
rights In the matter. At the same time the
positlon IS u peculiar one, not possible to be
settled by the rulings of any court sitting
upon the trial of an individual case, and in
my opinion commissions should be ap-
pointed both by the State of Pennsylvania
(af other States, If they wish to jofn) and
the United States, to bring about reason
able understanding of the points involved.
Inc report OF the Chamber OF Commerce
OF two years ago requested the appointment
Dy the State or commissioners to survey the
river, establish channel lines and prescribe
the regulations to prevent encroacmentu upon
Dor commissioners or port wardens were to
have been appointed to carry out the pro-
visions OF the law. Anyone can see that If
we had port wardens authorized to arrest
on sight any violators Of the regulations of
properly constituted Board of Super
visors it would be much better than to
depend upon the rulings of courts dictated
by the testimony advanced in individual
cases. This is not to say that the courts
would be closed to hear cases-for that
could never be-but as in New York Harbor,
or in Boston Harbor or Philadelphia Har-
Dor, properly authorized officials should be
appointed to carry out the laws.
But here in Pittsburg there is clashing
between the riparian owners and the
rights of navigators, and it is time that a
better understanding OF the bearing Of all
the laws both of the State and of the United
States be had.
1t is quite absurd to say, however, as some
OF the papers have said, that the wrangle in
the Chamber of Commerce was victory of
the manufacturers of Pittsburg over the
rivermen. 1t was simply little brush,
which hope will tend to show the impor-
tance of an early adjudication of the great
points involved. The present United States
law seems to have been aimed with special
reference to the rivers about Pittsburg, and
1t is to be hoped that the final settlement of
the questions in dispute may be sat-
isfactory to the interests not only of the
riparian owners, but of the navigators hail
ing from Pittsburg, the city which owns
more tonnage than any other city in Amer
lea. THOMAS T. RoB1Brs,
PITrcprpc lima