Court Opinion

ID: 9299556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-02 17:06:06.653183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:37.912147
License: Public Domain

Upon the conclusion of the argument,
Justice SWAYNE, presiding,
rendered substantially the following decision:
It is important to avoid delay in this case, inasmuch as the act requires that in any event it should go to the supreme court, and that he would, therefore, dispose of it according to his impressions as they now exist.
He recognized the importance of the consideration that, inasmuch as the case had to go to the supreme court, it was desirable to make such disposition of the demurrers as would avoid the delay and expense of going there, possibly, twice, and it had controlled him, in part, in the conclusions he had reached. The special demurrer covers that portion of the damages alleged arising out of the claim of Smith & Co. The bill alleges that the plaintiffs contracted with Smith & Co. for the stone-work of the bridge upon the plans of building allowed by the act of 1869, and that in consequence of the change in the plan required by the act of 1871, Smith & Co. claim damages to the amount of over $200,000 of the plaintiffs for a breach of contract as to the kind of work provided for, resulting from the change in the plan of bridge; and the bill claims that these damages, if allowed to Smith & Co., should be paid by the United States as a part of the reasonable necessary costs of the change. He said as to the question presented he had no doubt. Upon no rule of damages in like cases could it be allowed. Upon breach of contract for sale-of property, the party claiming it is entitled to the profit of it, to be ascertained by the difference between market value and contract price. But he had never heard of a case in which it had been held that he was entitled also to recover either profits or losses arising out of contracts made upon the faith of the contract broken. But he said the rule of. damage is fixed in the law, and limited to the actual and necessary cost and expenditure to be incurred in making the change required. His mind was clear that the damage claimed could not be allowed, and would therefore sustain the special demurrer thereto. Proceeding to consider the general demurrer, he said that the power to regulate commerce was vested by the constitution in congress, and that they were-the sole judges as to mode and occasion of its exercise, and that no judicial determination was necessary in any case of such exercise to enable congress to act. The power of congress was a perpetual one, derived from the constitution, and could be exercised as often as congress might in its discretion do so, and that it could both enact and repeal without condition.
There was another proposition that was likewise dear, that congress, in the exercise of this power, had the right to order the removal of all obstructions to the navigation of the river, and to determine what should constitute such an obstruction. As was said by the court in Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. [70 U. S. 713]: “Congress may interpose by *126general or special laws whenever it shall be deemed necessary. It i may regulate all bridges over navigable waters, remove offending bridges and punish those who may hereafter erect them. Within the sphere of their authority, both the legislative and judicial powers of the nation are supreme.” He had no doubt of its power to order the removal of any bridge across a navigable stream, and the legislation in this case was constitutionally competent. Whether it was wise or just, it was for congress to determine. The courts could not revise their judgment in that respect. As to the liability of the government to pay damages for the removal of property, congress might order to be abated as a nuisance. He knew of no case in which it had been allowed, nor did he, indeed, remember any case in which such liability had been claimed. So far as he knew, when the supreme court ordered the removal of the Wheeling bridge as an obstruction to navigation, no one even suggested that the plaintiff or the government, whose law required it, were liable for damages; and in the ease of Gilman v. Philadelphia [supra], such liability was not considered or mentioned. There was no doubt that congress could order the removal of obstructions which it declared to be nuisances without any legal obligations on the part of the government to make compensation. If this was such a ease merely, he would have no hesitation in sustaining the demurrer.
But this case presents a feature that is novel, and of first impression. Before building their bridge, plaintiff applied to congress for instruction as to the mode in which it should be done. In the joint resolution of 18G9, this mode was prescribed,' and upon the faith of that act the plaintiff proceeded to erect its bridge according to its terms. So far as it appears it acted in good faith. Before having completed their bridge, however, congress passed the act of 1871, by which it prohibited the completion of the bridge upon the plan it had before authorized. It would be unsafe for any company to proceed to erect a bridge across a navigable stream, without first making an application to congress for directions as to its plan, and he believed that such had been, and was now, the uniform practice.
It is claimed on behalf of the plaintiffs’ •counsel, with great plausibility, that the act of 1869 constitutes a contract between the bridge company and the United States, by which the bridge company should be entitled to complete and maintain its bridge upon the plan permitted by that act, until experience ■shall have shown that the bridge was a substantial obstruction to the navigation of the ■river. It is insisted, on the other hand, with great force, by the counsel for the government, that congress retained, as a necessary incident of its legislative power, the right of unconditional repeal at its discretion, and that this right is implied in every exercise of this power, including the act in question, iind passed as a necessary condition with it, and that it could not qualify or restrain its right in that respect by any contract. Upon these two propositions a great array of authorities and an exhaustive discussion has been presented. My own impressions are against the claim of the plaintiff in this respect; but they may be perhaps altered upon a fuller representation of the case upon its merits, as shown in final trial. The question is one upon which eminent counsel might form opposite opinions. In view of this doubt, aijd the possibility that the other members of the supreme court might disagree with me, and that I might, indeed, change my own views, I think it is a better administration of justice in the ease to permit the case to proceed, and have the question presented to the supreme court'fully upon the whole merits of the case. I shall, therefore, overrule the general demurrer, and give leave to answer.