Year: 1876

OPPOSITION TO ITS CONSTRUCTION AS oBsTKUCT-


ING NAVIGATION AND AN INJURY TO COM


MERcE-ARGuMENr BEFORE JUDGE JOHNSON.


While the work Of finishing the New York side of the
abutment to The Brooklyn Bridge is slowly reaching
completion an effort is being made in she courts to
restrain the further prosecution Of the work. far AZ
putting cables across the is concerned, or doing
any that shall interfere with tho navigation OF the
river The OF the bridge was hrst author
ized by the Legislature OF the State OF New YORK. In
1867 which provided that ''nothing this act con-
tanned shall be construed to authorize shall It
thorze the construction Of any bridge that shall OBJ
s,ruct the free and common navigation of the East
River the construction of any pier in the said river
beyond the pier line established by law and further,
that ''such bridge shall DO less elevation than
$50 high tide In the middle OF the river In
1867 Congress enacted such bridge sis hereby
declared 10 bo wnen completed in accordance with the
Aforesaid law OF New York. lawful structure ann post
road Tor the conveyance OF the mails oi the United
States provided that the said bridge shall be so con-
siructed not to Obstruct impair or nJurously
modify the navigation OF the SAID river" In order 10
compliance with these terms II further directed
that the work could not DO commenced until the Sec
retary OF War approved the plans In 1873 BY an act
of the Legislature OF the State OF New York the bridge
was made public work. TO be paid for by the cities OF
New York and Brooklyn. The present condition OF the
bridge well known TO all The case presents several
interesting and peculiar features The bridge wholly
within The State Of New York. but is to be built
the sea, through which the commerce of the
New England States The east, and the Middle states
on the SOUTH passes its coastwise intercourse In
the suit prevent the putting Of cables across the
river Mr. William Henry Arnoux has been employed,
counsel for A. B. Miller and others bringing the
suit, and Mr. William N. Evarts has been retained by
the bridge company. An argument on the motion ior
the injunction was commenced yesterday before Judge
Johnson in Utica


Mr. Arnoux opened the argument He claimed that
the navgabie waters OF every civilized nntion ncud
ing within its jurisdiction, and all bays estu
aries tidal waters and rivers belong TO the people at
upon or appropriated permanently TO any private use
OF any individual or corporation, without the
consent OF the sovereign power; that at CON-
mon law, whatever means or contrivance at
any time, in any manner, or under any clr-
cunstances, obsructs, mpairs, mpcdes hnders,
delays or that adds to the expense OF the Tree use. or
that in any other encroachcs upon The jus
lcum, in to any highway, marine tuvlal or terres
and such may be abatcd by force or by process
of law; that according To principles governing courts
in constituting statutes that contain grants the act OF
Congress declaring the Brooklyn Bridge, when
pleted, accordance with the law OF New York, law
ful structure provided that the said bridge should be
constructed to Obstruct Injuriously modify
the navigation OF the st RIVER prohibits the slight
est invasion Of encroachmonts upon the jus pub


cum In this great highway Of commerce, and that the
authority gwen the Secretary OF War is only for the
inception OF the work. not to determine that such a
bridge when built will obstr lct impair or nJuri-
ously mOciiy the navigation OF the river; that such
authorization would be unconstitutional in granting o
the executive branch OF the government judicial power
relating TO its ministerial duties and that such
construction therefore, will be given this act He
urged in conclusion, that there being therefore no
legal right build the bridge under the OF Congress
stands before the Court wholly lnsuthor;zed
structure, and amenabe to all the principles of the
law applicable to the abatement OF unauthorized nui