Marietta daily leader. (Marietta, Ohio) 1895-1906, 1899-01-27
Complicated Bridge Question to be
Decided by Supreme Court.

1NN'NSN " S''S -
Washington, d. c., Jan. 25.--There
will be argued tomorrow before the
Supreme Court of the United States
the case of Frank M. Rider, John f.
Burgess and Samuel l.. Rutledge, Com
missioners of Musklngum county,
against the United States.
The case involves some interesting
points of law and procedure. The
Muskingm river is not navlgable in
lis natural state, but was rendered so
in 1910 by the State of Ohio construct
ing system of locks and dams and
canals. These were maintained by the
State through its Board of Public
Works until the river was ceded to the
Federal Government in 1887. In 1874
the General Assembly authorized the
county to construct bridge across the
river between the towns of Taylors
vile and Duncans Falls. At this
point the river breaks into rapids, and
navigation was carried on by means
Of side cut canal built by the state,
in no way conflicting with the bridge.
After the cession of the stream the
United States built a new lock and
dam and created an artificial channel
under the bridge, thus raising the lev
ell of the water under it.
In December 1890, Secretary of War
Proctor served notice on the Commits
sioners that their bridge was an OBJ
struction to navigation, and ordered
them to create "a draw span in accord
ance with specifications furnished by
the department The Commissioners
were given hearing before Col. w. Il.
Merrill United States Engineer, at
GAINESVILLE, in March, 1891 and were or
dered to complete the work by Sep
tember 80 of that year.
At the time there were no funds in
County Treasury available for that
purposc and no levy could be made be-
yond $4,000, except by special act of
the Legislature, while the plans called
for an outlay of 100000. The Com
missioners failed to perform the work
imposed on them by the Secretary of
War. The case was first tried before a
jury upon evidence, and pro forma
verdict of guilty was taken by consent
with the understanding that the point
of law involved should be presented
and considered on motion for a new
trial.
In 1892 the case was brought into the
Supreme Court of the United States on
a certificate of division of opinion be-
tween the Judges of the United States
Circuit for the eastern division South
ern District of Ohio. The case was
heard on transcript of the record, but
the Court refused to answer the ques-
tions certified and dismissed the certi-
ficate, referrin gthe case back to the
United States Circuit Court.
A motion for a new trial was heard
and overruled by the Circuit Court and
the Commissioners were fined $40 each
and the costs. To this they filed bill
Of exceptions, which was allowed and
maze a part of the record
The questions which the Supreme
Court will be asked to decide are:
Did the Secretary Of War give the
Commissioners reasonable notice and
time to complete the work?
and further, Are the powers attempt
ed to be delegated to the Secretary of
War lodged exclusively in Congress by
the Constitution or can Congress dele
gate the Secretary of War in such an
AFFAIR.""
The plaintiffs are represented by f.
II. Southard and S. NJ. Winn, OF Zanes-
vile, while Attorney-G General Griggs
apears for the Government