Case: The State of Pennsylvania, Complainant, v. The Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company, William Otterson and George Croft
Abbreviation: Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co.
Decision Date: 1851-12
Docket Number: 
Citation: 13 How. 518
Volume: 54
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: The State of Pennsylvania, Complainant, v. The Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company, William Otterson and George Croft.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice TANEY and Mr. Justice DANIEL dissented.
Pages: 518–628

Head Matter:
The State of Pennsylvania, Complainant, v. The Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company, William Otterson and George Croft.
The State of Pennsylvania having constructed lines of canal and railroad, and other means of travel and transportation, which woijld be injured ' in their revenues by the obstruction in the Biver Ohio, created by a bridge at Wheeling, has a sufficiently direct interest to sustain an application to this court) in the exercise of ori ginal jurisdiction, for an injunction to remove the obstruction. The remedy at law would be incomplete.
It is admitted that the federal courts have no' jurisdiction of common-law. offences, and that there is no abstract, pervading principle, of the common law of the Union under which this court can take jurisdiction; .and that the case under consideration is subject to the same rules of action as if the suit had been commenced in the' Circuit Court for the District of Virginia.
But chancery jurisdiction is conferred on the courts of the United States by the Constitution, under certain limitations; and, under these limitations, the usages of the High Court of Chancery, in England, which have been adopted as rules by this court, furnish the chancery law which is exercised in all the States, and even in those where no State chancery system exists.
Under this system, where relief can be given by the English chancery, similar relief may be given by the courts of the Union.
An indictment against a bridge, as a nuisance, by the United States, could not be sustained; but a proceeding against it, on the ground of a private and irreparable, injury, may be sustained, at the instance of an individual or a corporation, either in the Federal or State courts.'
In cas6 of nuisance, if the obstruction be unlawful and the injury irreparable, by a suit at common law, the injured party may claim the extraordinary protection of a court of chancery. .
The Ohio is a navigable stream, subject to the commercial power of Congress, which has been exercised over it; and, if the act of Virginia authorized the structure of the bridge, so as to obstruct navigation, it would afford no justification to the bridge company.
Congress has sanctioned the compact made between Virginia and Kentucky, viz.; “ That the use and navigation of the River Ohio, so far as the territory of Virginia or Kentucky is concerned, shall be free and common to the citizens of the United States.” This compact is obligatory, and can be carried out by this court.
Where there is a private injury from a public nuisance, a court of equity will interfere by injunction.
In this case, the bridge is a nuisance. This is shown by measuring the height of the bridge, and of-the'water, and of the chimneys-of the boats. The report of the commissioner, appointed by this court to ascertain these facts, is equivalent to the verdict of a jury.
The report of the commissioner adverted to and commented upon; the extent of injury sustained by the boats explained; and the importance shown of maintaining the navigation of the river.
If a structure be declared to be a nuisance, there is no room for. a calculation and comparison between the injuries and benefit!} which it produces..
Therefore, unless there be an elevation of the lowest parts of the bridge for three hundred feet over the channel of the river — not less than one hundred and. eleven feet from the low-water mark, the flooring of the bridge descending from the termini of the elevation at the rate of four feet in the hundred — or some other plan shall be adopted which shall relieve the navigation from obstruction, on or before the first of February next, — the bridge must be abated.
(In consequence of the intimation above alluded to, viz., “ that some other plan might be adopted ’’..than elevating the bridge, the court, at the request of the counsel for the Bridge Company, referred the matter to 'an engineer. After receiving his report, ^ the court decided as follows.)
The Bridge Company may, upon their own responsibility, try whether the western channel can be improved and made passable, by means of a draw, so as to afford. a safe and unobstructed navigation for the largest class of boats, having chimneys eighty feet high, when they cannot pass under the suspension-bridge. Tiffs' is to be done, if at all, before the first Monday of February next, on which day the plaintiff may move the court on the subject of the decree.
This was a case upon the equity • side of this court, in the exercise'of original'jurisdiction.
It is noticed in 9 Howard, 647j and again in 11 Howard, 528.' In 9 Howard, a statement is given of the contents of the bill and answer, and of .the proceedings in the case, up to the time of its reference to a commissioner, for the purpose of talcing further proofs upon the points therein stated. The reader is referred to that volume for these proceedings.
-In that report it is mentioned, that' a notice of the arguments of counsel was deferred until the final decision of the case.
That final decision having takenjplace at this term] it is proper now; to note as briefly as possible the gi* unds assumed by the respective counsel.
The points made ánd authorities cited by the counsel for the plaintiff, were the following, viz.
1. That the Ohio River is a public highway of commerce, which, under the Constitution of the United States, has. been regulated by Congress. ' Journal of Congress, vol. 4, 637, 638; Ordinance of 1787, art. 4; Act of Congress admitting Kentucky, (1 Stat. at Large, 189); Virginia act of Assembly, 18 Dec. 1789, (Rev. Code, 1819,57); Acts of Congress for enrolling and licensing ships or vessels to be employed in the coasting trade, and for regulating the same, (1 Stat. at Large, 305); Act of Congress authorizing duties to be paid at ports on the Ohio, (4 Stat. at Large, 480); Act of Congress to improve the navigation of the. Ohio .River,. (4 Stat. at Large,, 32); Acts of Congress providing for inspection, &c., of steamboats, (5 Stat. at Large, 304); Committee Report No. 672, in the House of Representatives, 24th Congress; Report No. 993, 25th Congress, on a bridge at Wheeling; Report No. 79, 28th Congress, 1st session on abridge at Wheeling; Pennsylvania Resolutions, vol. 29, (Pa. Laws, 487,) on a bridge at Wheeling; Pennsylvania Resolutions, vol. 31, (Pa. Laws, 591,) on the Wheeling Bridge ; 42 Ohio Laws, 269 ; Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat, 1; Gordon’s Digest T5, 27, 176,191, 325, 343, 428; 2 Madison Papers, 599, 602, 606, 614, 623, 627, 677; Resolutions of General Assembly, of Virfinia, November; 1786; Resolution offered by. delegates from forth Carolina,'in Congress, September, 1788, relative to the navigation of the Mississippi, (Journal of Congress, 1788); Resolution of Congress, on the same subject, September, 1788, (Journal of Congress, 1788); 2 Madison Papers, 678 ; Act providing for sal'e of Public Land, (1 Stat. at Large, 464, sect. 6); Lyman’s American Diplomacy, 300, 303, 310, 311, 315; Report on Com-, merce and Navigation, December 31, 1849.
2. That free navigation of the Ohio River, as a common highway, having been established by regulations of Congress, and by compact between the States, it cannot lawfully be obstructed by force of any State authority or legislation."' Constitution of the United States, art. 1, sect. 8, clauses 2, 4,17; sect. 9, clause 5 ; sec. 10, clause 2.; art. 6,1st clause; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; Brown ?\ State of Maryland, 12 Wheaton, 419; Wilson v. Blackbird Creek Marsh Co. 2 Peters, 245; Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Peters, 540, 542, 604; Norris v. Boston, 7 Howard’s United States Rep. 283; Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Peters, 506; Houstpn v. Moore, 5 Wheaton, 22; Worcester ?;. Georgia, 6 Peters, 515; Spooner vt McConnell, 1 McLean’s Rep. 359; United States v. New Bedford Bridge, 1 Woodb. & Mipot, 401, and authorities there citfed; Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. Ó. 379 ; Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540 '; Livingston’ v. North R. S. B. Co. 3 -Cow. 713.
3. That inasmuch as the Wheeling Bridge has been found by the commissioner’s report to bexan obstruction to the free navigation of. the Ohio River, it is a public nuisance that may be abated by a court of equity on complaint of an injured party. Hargrave!s Tract, De Jure Maris, 9, 22, 35, 87; 3 Thomas’s Co. Lit. 4;' 2 Story’s Equity, sects. 920, 921, 924 ; Eden on Injunctions, 157,158, 160,161, 222, 228 ; Drewr-y on Injunctions, 237, 240, 249, 294; City of Georgetown v. Alexandria Canal 12 Peters, 91; Blakemore v. Glamorganshire Canal Co. 1- Myl. & Keen, 164; 1 McLean, 359; 3 McLean, 226; 1 Woodhury & Minot, 401; Shelford on Railways, 428, 445, and cases there cited; Robinson v. Lord Byron, 1 Bro. C. Ó. 588; Lane v. Newdigate, 10 Vesey, .192; Spencer v. London and Birmingham Railway Co. 1 Railway C. 170; Attorney-General v. Manchester Railway, 1 Railway C. 436 ; .North of England Railway v. Clarence'Railway, 1 Coll. C. C. 521; Angelí on Watercourses, 201, 208,209,213; Attorney-General v. Burridge, 10 Price, 350; Attorney-General v,. Parmeter, Id. 378; Attorney-General v. Johnson, 2 Wils. Ch. R. 87; Attorney-General v. Forbes, 2 Myl. & Craig, 1?3; Attorney-General v. The Cohoes" Co. 6 Paige, Ch. 133; Spencer v. The Railway Co. 8 Simons, 193; Corning ?;. Lowerre, 6 Johns. Ch. 439; Boston Water Power Co. v. Boston & W. Railroad, 16 Pick. 525; Barrow v. Richards, 8 Paige; Ch. 351; Livingston v. Mayor, of N. York, 8- Wend. 99; Bush v. Warren, Prec. Ch. 530; 2 Story’s Equity, p. 252; 2 Ans. 603; 2 Starkie’s Rep. 448; .United States Const, art. 3, sect. 1, 2; Walford on Railways, 408; Shelford on Railways, 430; 1 Railway Cases, 68, 576; 2 Railway Cases, 380; 2 Younge1 & Coll. 611; Attorney-General v. Utica Ins. Co. 2 Johns. Ch. Rep. '379; 1 Baldwin, 205; 1 Swanston, 250; 1 Mylne & Keen, 164; 3 Howard’s United States Rep. 229; Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Bridge, before Judge Grier, Pamphlet Reports.
4. That for an injury to a State, she may maintain a. suit in a court of competent jurisdiction. King of France v. Morris, 3-Yeates, 251; King of Spain v. Oliver, Peters C. C. R. 276; •Nabob of T.he Carnatic v. East India Co. 1 Yes. Jr. 382; Don Diego v. Jolyfe, Hobart, 86; Colombian Government v. Rothschild, 1 Sim. 94; Duke of Brunswick v. King ■ of Hanover, 6 Beav. 1; Story’s Equity PI. sect. 55; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet¡ 720; 4 How. 592; Vattel, book 3, chap. ,6, sects. 22, 23, 49, 50, 60, 65, 71;' Wheaton’s International LáW> 81, 82; Lieber’s Political Ethics, 2, 5, 48, book 2, 196; Whewell’s Elements, 2, 5,o849 ; Mayor of New Orleans v. The. United States, 10 Peters, 672; New Jersey v. Wilson, 7 Cranch, 164; United States Constitution, art. 3.
5. That the equitable powers of the Supreme Court of the United States are adequate to grant relief against a public nuisance, and where a State is a party to the suit, that court has original jurisdiction. United States Const, art. 3, sects. 1,2; City of Georgetown v.- Alexandria Canal, 12 Peters, 91; Story’s Commentaries, 570; Federalist, ~ No. 80; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheaton, 839; Bank of United States v. Planters Bank, 9 Wheat. 904.
The following extract contains the views of Mr. Stanton, one of the counsel for the complainant.
It is my design to present, as briefly as I can, the grounds on which the Stateof Pennsylvania prosecutes this suit and claims relief of this court. That purpose will be served by the discussion of a single proposition which will embrace all the points made, viz.
That the Ohio River is a' highway of commerce leading to and from the ports of Pennsylvania, regulated by Congress, unlawfully obstructed by the Wheeling Bridge, to the injury of the State of Pennsylvania; and therefore that the bridge ought to be abated by decree of this court at her suit.
The first branch of this proposition, that the Ohio River is a highway of commerce, will not be disputed; for it is a geographical and statistical fact recognized by every department of the government of which this court would take judicial notice; and by their answer the defendants admit that this highway is navigated in steamboats by citizens of the State of Pennsylvania, and connects with her ports. The boundary of six States, its waters draining a large territory of four other States, flowing in a south-west direction from the Alleghany • Mountains to the Mississippi, presenting to the navigator a broad and placid stteam one thousand miles in length, more free from dangers and obstructions than any other navigable river in the world, it is apparent that the regulation of this river would claim the earnest attention of statesmen. Accordingly we find that when the possession of this river - and the territory through which it flowed had been secured by independence and peace with Great Britain, the sagacious statesmen of that day speedily turned their attention to' the regulation, of the western rivers, and the commerce they foresaw must soon flow along their course,
On the 12th day o£ May, .1786, on the motion of Mr. Grayson, of Virginia, the following resolution was adopted:
“ Resolved, That the navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence,, and the carrying-places between the same, be, and they are hereby, declared to be common h’ighways, and be forever free, as well to the inhabitants of said territory as to the citizens of the United States and those of any other States that may be admitted into the confederation, without any tax,- impost, or duty therefor.” Journal o'f Congress, 1786; p.. 637.
Soon after this, all questions as to the title of the territory north-west of the Ohio being secured hy compromise and cession .of the claims of the several States, an ordinance for its regulation was adopted by Congress. This was the ordinance of 13th July, 1787, since become so famous in connection with another question. The 4th article, last clause, of this ordinance, .contains, a regulation in the same words as the resolution of Mr. Grayson. A similar condition has been imposed on.the admission into the Union of every State bordering upon these waters. It is denied by the defendants that Virginia assented to this provision of the ordinance. But this can make no difference, for it is nevertheless'a'regulation of commerce by Congress, as has been decided by this court, (3 How. 229,) and at all events it overthrows the authority claimed by these defendants under the legislation of Ohio.
' In 1789, Virginia, being in possession of a large territory north-east of the Ohio, now constituting the State of Kentucky, desired to have it admitted into the Union as a separate and independent State. For this purpose, her General Assembly, on the 18th December, 1789, passed an act providing for its erection as an independent State upon certain terms and conditions, among which .were the following: '
“ That the use and .navigation- of the River Ohio, so far as the territory of the proposed State, or the territory that shall remain within the limits of this Commonwealth lies thereon, shall be free and common to the citizens of the United States.” Virginia Rev. Code, 1818, p. 59-
' To this, act the assent of -Congress was given, (1 Stat. at Large, 64,) and it became-a compact between Virginia and the othér States of the Union. Freedom being thus established by Congress and the concurrent action of Virginia! as the regulation of the river channel, its commerce was still further -regulated by the act of Congress of 1807, attaching the Ohio River to the collection district of Mississippi, and appointing surveyors for the ports of Pittsburg, Marietta, Cincinnati, and Louisville. 1 Stat. at Large, 464.
The growing commerce of this region in 1824 received further attention from the general government, by a large appropriation to improve the navigation of the Ohio River; and from that period until now ■ annual appropriations have been made to im.prove its navigation and remove obstructions. This commerce being carried on by steamboats, the regulation of these vessels in 1838 received the attention of Congress. The act of 7th of July, 1838, provided specially for their license .and enrolment, for the appointment of an inspector of their boilers, engines, and machinery, prescribing the duties of the officers, and enforcing severe penalties in case of injury to persons or property. 5 Stat. at Large, 304.
Thus it appears that the constitutional power of Congress to regulate commerce on the Ohio. River, belonging exclusively to that branch of the general government, has been fully exercised upon every subject susceptible of regulation. This power has been exerted upon the channel, and whatever passes through it, —upon the stream and upon its bed, upon the vessel, its . navigator, and whatever it transports, upon its engine, machinery, cargo, passengers, officers, and crew; nay, that it has. extended, to the very subject now under consideration; and that Congress, by express and repeated action, has prohibited the erection of a. bridge at "Wheeling, I shall proceed now to show.
In 1836, petitions to Congress praying for the construction of a bridge at Wheeling were laid before that body. They were backed by resolutions of the State of Ohio instructing her Senators and requesting her Representatives to use their exertions to obtain that object. Accompanying them were. statements and representations of similar import to the grounds now urged in favor of the Wheeling Bridge. The importance of such structure.as a link connecting .the disjointed fragments of the Cumberland Road, — the great advantage to commerce, and to the general government in the time of war, of such facility for crossing the Ohio'River, — the obstructions of ice and driftwood and the evils of the ferry, —- the inconvenience of delay in transporting the mails, — all these were held up in bold relief, and represented in glowing and exaggerated colors. With the petitions were presented various communications from Mr. Ellet, the engineer by whom this bridge has been erected, urgiilg the necessity and practicability of the undertaking, and presenting plans; for its accomplishment. A favorable report was procured from the Committee on Roads and Canals, which undertook to answer the objection urged against bridging the Ohio. From this report it appears that the main, and indeed the only important objection was that now insisted on by the State of Pennsylvania; the obstruction which sudh an erection would be likely to occasion to steamboats. In answer to this objection .'if was insisted then, as now, that high chimneys were unnecessary, and that the few boats likely to be obstructed might, with proper machinery, accommodate themselves to the exigency, and that their convenience should yield to the public benefits of a bridge.. But Congress thought otherwise, and the plan was-rejected. House Reports, 1st sess. 24th Cong. No. 132.
At the next session of the same Congress the subject was again brought forward; the same plan proposed; the same views presented; the same arguments urged. The project was again opposed in Congress on the ground of its injury to navigation, and, as is evident from the committee’s report, was on that ground alone defeated. House Reports, 2d sess, 24th Cong. .672.
Still insisting upon a bridge at Wheeling, the 25th Congress, had the subject presented in a report of the Committee on Roads and Canals, on the 27th of June, 1838. In/ the mean time an exploration and survey had been made, under the direction of the War Department, by Messrs. Sanders and Dutton, two skil-, ful and distinguished engineers in the government service. They presented a plan for a suspension bridge across the Ohio River, having for its basis a strict regard to the rights of navigation, and providing that no obstruction should be offered to the passage of the highest steamboat chimney on the highest' floods. Their plan proposed a space of five hundred feet in width and the height of the highest chimney then known; and, in order to provide* for any change or improvement in steamboats, the floor of the bridge was to be movable so as to allow the passage of boats. Report of Messrs. Sanders and Dutton, House Documents, 25th Congress, June,-1838, No. 993. The cost was estimated at $400,000. A plan by Mr. Ellet was also submitted for a bridge, the same elevation, seven hundred feet in width. But the same objections being urged, were found to be insuperable, and the plan was rejected.
• It is further to be remarked that among the documents of this session was a surrender by the city of Wheeling of its streets for the purposes of a bridge, and by Zane of any portion of the island for purposes of embankment. And yet an excuse now given for not erecting the bridge higher is the alleged damage to the streets, and the amount Zane would charge for embankment on the island, which is. set down at the moderate estimate of $20,000. These rights were then freely granted for the bridge; and it was not until a later day that the cheap expedient was resorted to of saving private property by the encroachment on public rights on a navigable river.
In December, 1843,' another series of resolutions was procured from the Ohio legislature, and, armed therewith, those interested in making 'Wheeling the head of. navigation, again appeared before Congress. But Pennsylvania had become awakened to her interests, and the danget becoming imminent, she instructed her senators’ and representatives to oppose the' erection of the proposed bridge across the Ohio. Her resolutions pointed to the specific objections now urged: — The obstruction to the free use of the Ohio River.; the injury to commerce, trade, and manufactures, building of ships, war-steamers, and other vessels, by placing a barrier in the passage to the Gulf'; the interfering with steamboats, in high water, trading with the Western and Southern States; and claimed the use of thé Ohió'Rivef as a great thoroughfare. They were in these words:
“ Whereas, application has been made to Congress of the United States for an appropriation to aid in the erection of a bridge across the Ohio River at Wheeling, Virginia, the construction of which might materially obstruct the free use and navigation of said river above that point, and injuriously affect the commerce of the city of Pittsburg and all that district of Pennsylvania lying west of the. Alleghany Mountains,' by arresting the building of war-steapaers and other vessels' of the great western manufacturing and commercial emporium of this State, by placing a barrier to their passage to the Gulf of Mexico, besides seriously interfering with the free navigation of the Ohio River by steamboats and other vessels engaged in the trade of the Western and Southern States during. high stages of water: Therefore,
“ Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,- in General Assembly met, That our Senators in Congress are hereby instructed, and our Representatives requested, to vote against any appropriation by the national legislature to the object above stated, and oppose every proposition for the erection of a bridge at Wheeling or at any other point on.the Ohio River, or any project that would result in increasing the obstacles already existing to the free navigation and use of that great thoroughfare of this Commonwealth.
“ Resolved, That the Governor be requested to transmit a copy of-the foregoing preamble and resolution to each member of the Pennsylvania delegation in Congress.
“James Ross Snowden, Speaker of the House.of Rep.
“ William Bigler, Speaker of the Senate.
“ Approved 26th January, 1844. • David R. Porter.”
These resolutions were immediately laid before Congress, and referred in the House to the Committee on Roads and Canals, on which was Mr. Steenrod, a member from Wheeling. House Doc. 28 Cong. No. 79.
Here, then, the question was brought before Congress in the most solemn and imposing form. Two sovereign States appeared at the bar of Congress, one urging and the other opposing the bridge.
At this, crisis a bill had already been reported by that committee making an appropriation for a bridge at Wheeling, and containing this clause, “ that the bridge shall be so constructed as to, admit at all times, without obstruction or delay, of the safe and easy passage of steamboats of the largest dimensions.”
On ,the twenty-ninth day of January Mr. Steenrod presented á report, not contesting the rights of Pennsylvania, nor the injury she must suffer from an obstruction at Wheeling, but claiming that a bridge could be erected across the Ohio, at Wheeling without obstructing the use and navigation of the river according to the provisions of the bill. With this report was submitted a plan by Mr. Ellet for such a bridge, stating that he had, since the date of his former plan, examined the localities, and “ would recommend a radical change of plan for the Wheeling Bridge, and leave the river entirely unobstructed.” House Rep; 28 Cong. No. 79.
It appears, moreover, that the plan proposed was in some respects similar to that afterwards adopted and executed by the same engineer. It was a single span across the river, at an elevation of ninety feet, above low water. But it was not then disclosed that such. elevation was to be only for one hundred feet in width; that the channel was to be cut across by an inclined plane so as .to obstruct a public navigable river. ' The specific objection was then urged as now, that ninety feet above low water would not admit the passage of steamboats with tall chimneys. It was then answered as it is now, that such height was unnecessary, that few boats only used, such chimneys, that they ought to be provided with hinges and machinery for lowering; that detention would be only for a short space; that the river was impassable by reason of ice; that the mails were delayed, and, in short, every possible argument that has been, qr can be, presented ill favor of this bridge was, in a report by the member from that district, pressed upon Congress. It was all to no purpose. The rights of Pennsylvania, and her 'interests of navigation, were deemed paramount, and the.constitutional obligation to preserve the Ohio River as a free and common highway was held to be inviolable.
Now, the-regulation of commerce consists as much in negative as positive action. Mr. Justice McLean, Passenger Cases, 7 Howard, 399.
Supposing, therefore, the Ohio River to be exclusively within the territory of Virginia, on both banks, and from its head to its mouth, and that she might authorize bridges over it, yet that power is subordinate to the constitutional authority of’ Congress over commerce. And if Congress, in the exercise of its power, has manifested a negative policy hostile to bridges over the Ohio, any conflicting exercise of State authority would be void. And yet, in their answer, this hostile policy of Congress is the confessed, motive for procuring their charter from the. State of Virginia.- Nay, more, its purpose is admitted to be that which the power granted to Congress by the 3d clause, 8th article, of the Constitution was especially intended to prevent, the acquisition by States, for their citizens, of commercial advantages by separate legislation.
*The addition of territory and of settlement on the Pacific Ocean, and the increasing population and commerce of that coast, have recently given new importance to the subject; the change in federal policy and legislation qs to bridges and other works of internal improvement has made it incumbent upon the States, by -separate legislation, to consult and promote their own and the general Welfare and prosperity.” Original Answer, p. 24.
The defendants’ allusion to the Pacific settlements and commerce is of deep significance, and indicates the result to be expected, if States may thwart and override the constitutional provision, and by separate legislation consult their own and the general welfare. It has been well remarked, that in such event, the Constitution would be a rope of sand.
It is manifest, therefore, that the only constitutional power that could in any event authorize this bridge had been invoked, and that by its negative action, potentially as by' express enactment, this structure,.was prohibited.
Commerce, on the Ohio, being thus regulated by Congress, and that regulation including afl the subjects of navigation, its vehicle, and those engaged in its management, it follows that any act or erection, in any way affecting the subjects thus regulated, .whether by individuals or State governments, is unlawful. In the great case of Gibbons v. Ogden, (9 Wheaton, 1,) this court decided that the power to regulate commerce included navigation, and when exercised by that body, any conflicting State regulation, no matter for what purpose or extent adopted, was void. In the subsequent case of Wilson v. The Blackbird Creek Marsh Company, (2 Peters, 245,) it was held that any exercise of this power by Congress excluded and controlled all State action.
Subsequent cases have illustrated these principles, applying them to all action, direct, or indirect, of individuals or-States interfering with congressional regulations of foreign and domestic-commerce. In the passenger cases, Norris v. Boston, and Smith v. Turner, (Pamph. Rep. p. 85,) Chief Justice Taney remarks : “ It has always been admitted, in the discussion upon this clause of the Constitution, (art. 8, sect. 3,) that the power to regulate commerce includes navigation, and ships, and crews, because they are the ordinary means of commercial intercourse.” In the same cases, Mr. Justice Daniel observes: “.The power to regulate commerce, includes the regulation of the vessel, as well as the cargo, and the manner of using the .vessel in that commerce.” Id. p. 131.
' In those cases the following propositions were among others maintained:
“ That the power to regulate commerce, foreign and between the States, was vested exclusively in Congress.” Mr. Justice McLean, 7 Howard, 400.
“ That the power in Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, includes navigation upon the high seas, and in the bays, harbors, lakes, and navigable waters within the United States, and any law by a State, in any way affecting the right of navigation, or subjecting the exercise, of the right to a condition, is contrary to the aforesaid, grant.” Mr. Justice Wayne, Id. 414.
“ That' Congress has regulated commerce, and intercourse with foreign nations, and between the several States, by willing that it shall be free, and it is, therefore, not left to the direction of each State in the Union, either to refuse a right of passage to person's or property through her territory, or to exact a duty for permission’ to exercise it.” Mr. Justice Catron and Mr. Justice Grier, Id. 464.
The principle of these decisions has been illustrated and enforced by a long series of cases, cited in the brief, and to which it is sufficient for me to refer. See eases cited in brief. Hence it follows that the bridge, erected by the defendants <Ner the channel of the Ohio River, if it obstructs, interferes with, or in anywise regulates navigation, is an unlawful obstruction, no
matter by what charter or State enactments it may be author-^ ized or sanctioned. I proceed to demonstrate that;it does obstruct navigation, and conflicts with every regulation prescribed by Congress for that river.
At Wheeling, the' channel between Zane’s Island and the main Virginia shore is one' thousand and ten feet wide. Through this strait, fifty millions in value of property, and over three hundred thousand passengers are accustomed to pass safely and without impediment, in steamboats to and from Pittsburg. ■ Through it, the rice, cotton, and sugar of the Southern States, the bacon, flour, tobacco, and various products of the Western States, the furs, peltries, ininerals) and products of -the North-western region are transported to an Eastern market; and by the same channel foreign and domestic merchandise and manufactures find their way to their millions of consumers in that vast region.. Baffled in. the project of divérting this commerce from Pittsburg, by making Wheeling the head of navigation, under the sanction of Congress, resort was had to State authority, where Pennsylvania had no voice and where her remonsfrdnce could not be heard. .
On the 19th of March, 1847, a charter-for the erection of. a wire suspension-bridge was obtained from the General Assembly of-Virginia,, under color of which, but in violation of the most important of its express provisions, the defendants proceeded to erect their bridge in the manner represented in the diagram now exhibited to the court.
An inspection of that diagram exhibits the fact that the omy material variation betwéen the bridge erected,'and that proposed to and rejected by Congress, in 1844, consists -in a particular, whereby nine hundred feet of the river channel is wholly cut off. for purposes of navigation. . When the engineer, by whom this- structure was erected, -proposed to throw a -single span across the channel, ninety feet above low water, no one could have imagined that elevation applied to only one hundred, feet in width of the water’s surface, and'that by an inclined plane stretching across the channel the residue was to be cut off. And ■ yet such is .this erection. The highest point in the bridge above low-water level is ninety-two feet one and a half inches : from that point it deflects four feet in every hundred, being at the .western abutment • only sixty-two feet above that' level. Taking the highest point as a centre of the highest space, one hundred, feet wide, it is at its extremities only ninety feet above water.' ,
This elevation, moreover, is- above" the low-water level of the Ohio, viz. eighteen inches in the channel. But this level exists-for a short season only of the year, the height of water varying forty- five feet between the extremes of high and low-water mark. The tables in the record exhibit the height of Water at Wheeling, each day, for the period of the last ten years. From them we gather *— &
1st.' That the usual Spring and Fall floods, in March and December, attain the height of thirty-eight feet.
2d. That floods, ranging from twenty to thirty-eight feet, have occurred in the months of January, February, March, April, May, June, July, November, and December, nine several months in the year.
3d. That the duration of these flb.ods varies from two to ten days.
. Regard to those facts has always been deemed of vital importance in the .consideration of bridging navigable waters. Thus the wire suspension-bridge over the Menai Straits, swings clear one hundred feet above high water; the Tweed Bridge is the same elevation; the Freyburg Bridge spans the channel at an elevation of one hundred and twenty-seven feet above high water,. (Sanders’s Report); and on a late occasion of erecting a railway-bridge over the Menai Straits, the Lords of Admiralty required the structure to be one hundred, feet above high water, the whole width (2,800 feet) of the channel. Quarterly Review, October, 1849. Stern adherence to this requisition led to the most brilliant achievement, of science since the days of Sir Isaac Newton. While the Conway Tubular-Bridge will stand as a monument of genius, overcoming natural obstacles to accommodate-navigation, the Wheeling Bridge hangs an obstruction to navigation, copied, by its engineer, from the miserable expedient of a South American Indian, its original inventor. .
With utter disregard to the principles of science and the exigencies of commerce, low-water level is taken as the basis of elevation for the Wheeling Bridge,- and upon-usual floods only a space one hundred feet in width by fifty in height is allowed for the passage of vessels ascending and' descending the Ohio River-r — through that space the commerce of the most návigable river in the world is compelled to . stoop and dodge in high floods. •
The extent of departure from the principles of art, the engagements of the parties, and the obligations of law, will be seen in the following considerations:
1st. It is an ordinary wire suspension-bridge,'which, overa channel like the Ohio, is condemned by one of the most dis-' Anguished, engineers of this country, whose opinion, from his official employment as superintendent of. the improvements of navigation on the Western waters, is entitled to great weight.
“ I have no hesitation in giving the. opinion that ordinary wire suspension-bridges ¿re not well adapted to the bridging of the Ohio; and in view, of the excessive ranges, from extreme low to extreme high water, ranging, as they do, from thirty-five to sixty-five feet at different points, 1 am persuaded that none but truss-ftame bridges, with suitable draws at one or both extremities, or at suitable intermediate points, are properly adapted to bridging the Ohio. Hence, I am decidedly of opinion that wiré suspension-bridges are neither expedient nor applicable in bridging the Ohio,, or any other of the main navigable 'rivers of the West, liable as they all are to excessive changes in the elevation of their surfaces and the depth of their floods.” Col. Long’s Deposition, pp. 139, 140.
2d. It is an inclined plane, thrown .¿cross a swift stre¿m of - ever-varying surface, the current setting west towards the lowest point of the bridge, rocks fringing the highest point on the east,, with nothing to mark the depth below, or the space above the surface, no two points at the same level, and nothing to guide the navigator, in the perils that thus beset him. This inclined plane is placed, so low as on spring floods to leave a clear headway of only fifty feet by one hundred in a natural channel one thousand and ten feet wide, over the whole of which vessels have hitherto been accustomed at all hours, in all weather, to pass safely, but where now: the obscurity of fog and. darkness, the force of the current, or accident in. the complicated- machinery of a steamboat, expose it to shipwreek.
3d. It not . only forbids all advance or improvement in the size and dimensions- of vessels, but forces them back ten years, .making the dimensions of the Louisville Bridge and the condition imposed by the falls of the Ohio, the'standard of steamboat architecture and navigation.
Thar in these respects, -also, such a bridge is against all example and rule, I shall now proceed to show, by the highest authority in; the science of engineering.
“Among the considerations that should-be held up to view, in throwing bridges across the Ohio, it may be stated that- the bridge shall offer no serious obstruction to the navigation -of the river, by steamboats or other eraft, according to existing peculiarities of such boats or craft, and‘to sound considerations of probable improvement in the size and character of such boats and craft.” Col. J. J. Abert, Chief of Top. Bureau, Record, pi 124. ,
“ In selecting a plan for a bridge over the -east branch, (of the Ohio at Wheeling,) .full regard must be had to the interests of the navigation of the Ohio, which require that the bridge should offer no'obstruction to. the passage of steamboats or other craft, which run or may hereafter navigate that river,” Report bn Wheeling Bridge to the War Depart, by Lieuts. Sanders and Dutton, House Rep. 25 Cong. 1 Sess. No. 903.
“ The bridge shall be so constructed as to admit, at all' times, withdut obstruction or delay, of- the safe and easy passage of steamboats 5f the largest dimensions.” Bill making an appro-, priation for a bridge at Wheeling; reported by tlm Committee, óñ-Roads and Canals. House Report, 28 Cong. 1st • Session, No.'79.
Telford’s- Wire Suspension-Bridge, over the Menai Straits, leaves , ahelear level water-way five hundred-feet wide. The Freyfiurg Bridge leaves a clear water-way eight hundred feet wide. Ellet’s Letter, House Rep. 24 Cong. No. 672.
The English Lords of Admiralty required the Conway Bridge to give a clear water-way one hundred feet above high water over -the whole width of the channel 2,800 feet. Oct. Quarterly Review, 1849, p. 218. In his first plan for. a bridge at Wheeling, submitted to Congress, Mr. Ellet proposed a clear water-way 700 feet wide. House Rep. 24 Cong. No; 672. In his last plan, he proposed a clear water-way over the whole width of the channel, and to leave • the river entirely unobstructed. Ellet’s Letter, De^ 29j 1843' House Rep. 28th Congress, 1st Session, No. 79. '
Influenced, doubtless, by these rules and examples, the Virginia Legislature provided in the charter of this bridge:
“ If the said bridge, mentioned in the eighth section of this act, shall be so erected as to obstruct the navigation of the Ohio River, m the usual manner of such steamboats and other crafts as ate now commonly accustomed to- navigate' the samé, when the river shall be as high as the highest floods heretofore known, then, unless, upon such obstruction being found to exist, such obstruction shall be immediately removed or remedied, the said last-mentioned br'idgé may be treated as a public nuisance, and. abated accordingly.”
• When- this charter was -accepted the defendants and their engineer thereby admitted the propriety of its requisitions, and engaged-to comply with them. It was a part of their contract, With which they 'Were bound to comply. Agar v. Regent’s Canal, Coop. 77q Blackmore v. Glamorganshire Canal, 1 Myl. &;-K. 164. In .total disregard of all this, the defendants have erected their bridge on the novel plan of their engineer — undertaking to divide inconveniences with commerce on a public river, imposing expense, danger, and delay, razeeing its vessels and averaging its -floods.
“■-It is fair to make a division of’thesd .inconveniences, and I. would therefore provide.for a passage of fifty feet, and a flood of thirty-five, ánd, if-occasion should require it, allow one or two of these boats to Me by for a few hours.” Ellet’s. Letter, House Reports, 28th' Congress, No. 79, p.- 4.
Vessels navigating the Ohio, áre propeMed by the agency of wind or steam, and with the dimensions’ of the bridge or channel thus ascertained, it remains only to examine the result upon these vessels.
At a single glance it is apparent that ships and. sea-going vessels, requiring,- as they do, over twelve feet draught and ninety-feet above the water, are wholly excluded from navigating the Ohio-above WheeMng. By the evidence,, it is shown, that from the port of Pittsburg, ships have been cleared for foreign ports, Iqden with domestic products. Revenue arid war vessels have been, constructed there for -the general government, and a large and prosperous business in ship-building and naval architecture' is springing up. The bridge at Wheeling necessarily involves the total destruction of this business, and the exclusion of such vessels and their commerce from the ports of Pennsylvania. Upon steam-vessels the exclusion operates with but Mttle less injury.
The diagrams now exhibited to the court represent the figure and dimensions of the Ohio steam-vessels. Two classes are spoken of. The first being large ándrswift packets plying between Pittsburg and Cincinnati. The second class comprising transient vessels and those'which, in the course of their business, pass through the Louisville Canal.
The first class average in length two hundred and thirty feet; they are over fifty feet wide ; their pilot-house stands forty-' eight feet above the surface of the water, and they require for free passage upwards of seventy feet space. . It is apparent, then, that to the passage of these vessels- the bridge offers a total obstruction whenever the water exceeds twenty feet in height. And this, it has already been shown, is liable to occur in nine several months of the year, and continue from .two to ten days at a time. Four-times, since.-this- court commenced jts session, they have been obstructed. The second class- of boats are one hundred and eighty feet in length, forty-nine'feet wide, with pilot house forty-seven-feet ábové'thri writer,' 'and chimneys over sixty feet high'.
Upon the Spring and Fall floods, ranging from thirty to thirty-eight feet, the passage of these boats will also be prevented. It is said this class are provided with machinery for lowering a portion of their chimneys. And so. they are; but the proof exhibits that this machinery has been resorted to as an expedient in order to avoid the obstruction of the Ohio .falls, by .passing through the canal at Louisville. And it is insisted by these defendants that all boats passing; to and from Pittsburg, shall be subject to the same condition; imposing upon navigation between Wheeling and Pittsburg the disadvantages of a great natural obstacle like the falls of Louisville.
Different opinions have been expressed by witnesses on the subject of lowering chimneys. A few observations in connection with the-draughts now beforé the court, will here be made.
Two plans of lowering are described. By the first, a few joints of chimney at the top, turning on a hinge, are iowered sufficiently to pass through the Louisville Bridge. But this mode is confined, as evidently it must' be, to cases where a short piece of small diameter and light weight is to be lowered. Yet, even in- these cases, it is spoken of as being a troublesome, expensive, and dangerous duty. Hinges have broken and chimneys fallen arid crushed the decks; o'fficers and men on the deck are exposed to danger at night in windy and stormy weather. The packet chimneys, weighing from 2500 to 3000 pounds, and five feet in diameter, require a different management. For lowering these, the only mode suggested is by the use of hinges at the hdrricane deck. Let us consider, then, the condition of one of these, packets in effecting, its .passage on high water.
Through the Louisville Canal, boats pass slowly with steam and fire down, with no opposing currents and no skill required to direct their course. The whole force, skill and attention of officers and crew, may there be devoted to lowering the chimneys. But boats descend the Ohio River at the rate of from fifteen to twenty miles per hour, and upon a current running between Zane’s Island and the- Virginia .shore at the rate of five to eight miles an hour, which shortly above the bridge, sets strongly out from the main shore to the island, thus inclining boats to the lower part of the bridge. See depositions of Duval and others.
The boats, moreover, usually arrive at- the bridge in the night season. When, therefore, their chiriineys are to be lowered, supposing it even possible by mechanical contrivances and skill, the task is to be accomplished under the most formidable dangers. Upon a slippery deck, over boilers of steam and a fiery furnace, contending with wind and current, the boat must be guided through a narrow space of one hundred-feet in width, while huge chimneys, three tons in weight, are to be lowered to the deck. It is plain that any accident, under these circumstances, involves hazard and destruction to life and property, exposing officers, passengers, and crew to disaster and death in the most appalling form. Numerous instances of casualties are spoken of by the witnesses, that have happened on the small boats passing bridges bn the Monongahela and in the Louisville C.anal. What, then, is to be apprehended at the Wheeling Bridge' on the Ohio River, if the packets are to be subjected to such condition ? Upon the evidence in this case,' there is ho room to doubt the consequences that must ensue.
With these general observations, I proceed to examine the evidence in detail. In the original answer it is admitted that there are boats that cannot pass the bridge. The first supplemental answer admits that there are six boats, the owners of which refuse to remodel their chimneys, so as to enable them, in case of a freshet, to pass under the bridge. In their memorial of January 1st, 1849, “ calling upon the. legislature of the State so to amend their charter, as to sanction by law the height fixed by the board of managers,” it is admitted that on a rise of thirty feet, a few of the larger class of boats “will be compelled” to lower their chimneys. On a rise of twenty-five feet, still fewer boats will be compelled to do so. On a flood of twenty feet, from five to §ix boats “ will be"required to lower their chimneys.” It is also confessed that the requisition imposes “ little trouble” and a “ small" additional expense.”
The fact being thus confessed by the defendants, 'that the bridge will arrest the passage of boats, impose the condition of “remodelling their chimneys,”.exact the duty of lowering, them in order to pass, and incur by this requisition trouble and expense, the right comes in question.
That no state could grant authority so to interfere with vessels, regulated and licensed pursuant to the acts of Congress, and navigating a river over which Congress had extended its protection as to boats, commerce,, and bridges, has already been shown. That Virginia neither assumed nor delegated sucli authority by their charter, appears from its terms. That the defendants knew they had no lawful authority, is proved by their calling on the legislature to amend their charter and sane-' tibn by law the height of their bridge.
But several grounds of justification, or rather excuse, are urged. That the only boats obstructed by the bridge, have unusually high chimneys, and “belong toJPittsburg,.the rival of Wheeling in commerce and manufactures.” That the height of steamboat chimneys has been increased since the date of the bridge charter. That the boats obstructed are few in number That the obstruction seldom happens, and only for short periods. That the height of the qhimney is unnecessary, or if necessary, may be lowered to pass the bridge.
To each of these points' of defence, the evidence furnishes a specific and conclusive answer.
(Mr. Stanton then entered into a critical examination of the evidence and proceeded.)
Without pursuing this branch of the subject further, it is evident that a more serious obstruction to tire navigation of the Ohio, by steam-vessels as well as ships, could not have been devised by the art of man. And, upon the authorities already adduced, it is manifest that the charter under which the defendants claim, if it authorized such erection, being a State enactment, which, in its operation, prescribes regulations for commerce conflicting with those of Congress, such charter is against' the Constitution of the United States, and is absolutely void. And all considerations, as to the practicability of changing- and adapting the structure and machinery of steamboats, so as to pass 'the bridge, are wholly unavailing to the defendants, for Congress, having regulated these vessels, appointed an inspector, prescribed their machinery, and the duties of officers and crew, and granted them a license to navigate the river, no individual nor' .State has any authority to. require a change of such machinery, nor impose the performance of any duty, nor for a single moment direct or arrest their course; and hence it follows that as this is undertaken and accomplished by the Wheeling Bridge, it is an unlawful obstruction of navigation on the Ohio River.
The injury resulting to the State of Pennsylvahia from this unlawful obstruction is of the utmost magnitude. Occupying a central position, resting eastward on the Atlantic, north on the Hakes, flanking on the Ohio, by it she is connected with the Gulf and the vast regions of the West and South. She thus enjoys a position for foreign and domestic commerce more favorable than any other in the Union. From the earliest period these advantages were cultivated, she became a navigating State; the energies and enterprise of her people were devoted to havigation and commerce. By her own' canals connecting 'the lakes and the Atlantic with the Ohio,' she possesses channels for water transportation, more important than can be possessed by any State on the continent. By steamboats navigating the Ohio she has intercourse with all the States lying west and south of her; and, by the same highway, commerce with foreign nations, passing through the Gulf and the Mississippi^ reaches her gates, to be transported eastward through the channels she has opened. Across this thoroughfare, within fifty miles of Her border, the Wheeling Bridge interposes its barrier. By it her communication with New Orleans, St. Louis, Cincinnati, and all the region West and south of her, is intercepted, and the commerce flowing between them and her public works is interrupted, exposed to danger, delay, and is at times wholly cut off. The admission ,by defendants, that obstruction of the Ohio River, from any cause, would injuriously affect her public works, is evidently true; and equally plain is it that sqch obstruction must injuriously affect every interest that a State can possess, or that she is bound to cherish and defend. This injury may be considered in respect,
1st. To the persons and property of hér citizens.
2d. To her sovereignty and eminent domain.
3d. To her ports.
4th. To the revenue of her public works.
(We must pass over the discussion of the first three of these points, and proceed to the last.)
To the public works of Pennsylvania, the injury occasioned' by this obstruction is deep and lasting. The products of the South and West, and of the Pacific coast, are brought in steamboats along the Ohio to the western end of her canals at Pitts-burg, thence to be transported through them to Philadelphia, for an eastern and foreign market. Foreign merchandise and eastern manufactures, received at Philadelphia, are transported by the same channel to Pittsburg, thence to be carried south and west, to their destination, in steambQats along the Ohio. If these vessels and their commerce are liable to be stopped within a short, distance as they approach the-canals, and subject to expense, delay, and danger, to reach them, the same consequences to ensue on their voyage departing, the value of these works must be destroyed. ' This result is confessed by the defendants to be a necessary consequence of obstruction to the-Ohio River from any cause.
“ They have no doubt that the navigation of the Ohio River is important to the works above referred to, and that the valúe thereof would be affected injuriously, if from any cause the pas-, sage of steamboats from the city of Pittsburg downwards, were obstructed or impeded”, 2d Supplemental Answer, Record, p.42.
That the passage of steamboats to and from Pittsburg is obstructed and impeded by the Wheeling Bridge, has also been' shown by the admissions already quoted.
. . . “ Six boats, the owners of which refuse to remodel their chimneys so as to enable them, in case of a freshet, to pass under thé bridge, belong to Pittsburg, the rival of Wheeling in commerce and manufactures.” Supplemental Answer, Record, p. 44.-
“ A few of the larger class of boats at such a stage (thirty feet) of water, will be compelled to lower their chimneys.” Mem. to Virginia Legislature, Record, p. 56.
It has been seen that the six boats referred to are the carriers between Pittsburg and Cincinnati, of three fourths of the trade and travel transported by the Pennsylvania Canal.
The large class spoken of, are the carriers from New Orleans and St. Louis. Too large for the canal, these boats can reach .Pittsburg and depart only on high water. Too large for the bridge, they can pass Wheeling only on low water. They, are thus excluded from Pittsburg by a natural obstruction at Louis ville, one portion of the year, and for the remainder by an artificial obstruction at Wheeling. To surmount both obstructions the same condition is imposed — “compelled to.” lower their chimneys.”
By their own confession, then, the defendants, with their cables stretched over the cnannel, produce the same result as if rocks were sunk in its bed.. Between the Pennsylvania Canal' and Louisville, a distance of seven hundred miles, no obstruction has hitherto existed. Between Pittsburg and Cincinnati, with which' one half of her commerce is transacted, this artificial obstruction, equal to the Louisville falls, is placed within fifty miles of her borders, interposing between her ports and every other to which her commerce extends. Nay, more— to remove obstructions in the Ohio, Congress, at the solicitation of the Pennsylvania Legislature, has appropriated many millions of dollars, (4 U. S. Stat. 32,)' and within twelve months before this bridge was commenced, one hundred and thirty thousand two hundred dollars were expended for that purpose between Wheel-' ing-and Pittsburg. Col. Albert’s Deposition, p. 126.
Thus it appears that while Congress has', been expending the public money in improving navigation, the defendants have spent their own in obstructing it, with much more effectual purpose.
From the admissions of the defendants as to the obstruction created by their bridge, and its injury to the property of Pennsylvania, attention may now be turned to the other evidence on the same subject.
Report of the Board of Canal Commissioners.
“ The board fully concur in the views expressed by the collector as to the injurious effects which the construction of the bridge at Wheeling must necessarily produce upon the revenues of the Commonwealth, derived from the main line of her public works. If the representation be true that the bridge referred to prevents the passage of the large class of steamboats, which can only run in times of high water, then the State ought to take every legal step to procure the removal of the obstruction. It is unnecessary for the board to present to the Senate any argument to prove that such an impediment to the free navigation of the Ohio will materially affect the interests of Pennsylvania.” Record, p. 421.
Report of the State Treasurer.
“ It becomes my duty to call your attention to the bridge lately constructed across the River Ohio at Wheeling; threatening, as it does, to interfere with the business and enterprise of Pittsburg, whose commercial prosperity is so essential to the productiveness of our main line of canal.- Should the price of freights .to and from Pittsburg, by the river, be enhanced in the smallest degree by destroying the competition between the large and small boats, it will result injuriouslyto the business of the canal, and prejudicial to the enterprise- of a city whose manufacturing 'wealth and commerce áre too valuable to the State to be jeopardized.” State Treasurer’s Annual Report, p. 12.
“ Annual receipts of main line, $1,238,720.05.” Id.- p. 50.
The views thus expressed by the public officers of Pennsylvania and of the general government, are sustained by the know-’ ledge and experience of business men.
(Mr. Stanton proceeded to comment on other testimony, and then contended that the bridge might have been constructed so as not to obstruct navigation. He then examined the .value of the bridge as a means of transit from shore to shore, and af-terwards the right of, the State to sue in her corporate capacity, for injuries operating immediately upon the persons, property, and business, of the citizens of Pennsylvania; and also for those which operate directly upon the State.)
The right to relief at her own suit being shown, its form remains to be mentioned. Abatement by injunction is prayed. And for these reasons: Abatement is a remedy which the law allows persons injured by a nuisance to administer for their own relief; but to avoid the strife and contention that thence might ensue, courts of equity have assumed jurisdiction to administer that specific remedy.
. The grounds of equitable jurisdiction for abatement by injunction, are precisely those occupied herein by the State.
“ The ground,” says Mr. Justice Story, “for this , jurisdiction in cases of'purpresture, as well as nuisance, undoubtedly is their ability to give a more complete and perfect remedy than is allowable at law, in order to preve'nt irreparable mischief, and also to suppress oppressive and vexatious litigation. In the. first place they, can interpose, as the' courts of law cannot, to restrain and prevent such nuisances threatened or-ifi progress, as well as those already existing. In the next place, by a perpetual injunction the remedy is made' complete' through all future time. Whereas an information or indictment at the common law can dispose only of the existing nuisance, and. for future acts 'new prosecutions must be brought. In the next .place the remedial justice in equity may be prompt and immediate before irreparable mischief is done, whereas at law nothing can be done except after trial and upon the award of judgment.” 2 Story’s Equity, 203; see also cases cited in the brief.
Obstruction of watercourses are cases calling for, this remedial • interposition of courts of equity. • 2 Story’s Equity, 206.
It needs no argument to show that the injury in question, as it is great in magnitude, is also most clearly within the class of what are known as irreparable injuries. In the first place being an injury to trade, the full extent of injury cannot be measured in damages, any more than in cases of nuisance to health, it can be ascertained how many months or weeks or hours life may be shortened. In the second place, it is unceasing and without end. "While the water flows and the bridge stands the injury continues. The mischief is not only irreparable, but the litigation to which it must le.ad would be vexatious in the last degree. The strife and contention that must follow, are also of the fhost serious character.
It is the specific peiialty prescribed by the. charter, the terms upon which the defendants obtained permission .to erect their bridge, the agreement entered into. That Virginia has since chosen for herself to waive "that penalty, can make no difference a,s to the equities of other parties. This remedy is still in the •charter : “ If the bridge shall be so erected as to obstruct navigation, the said bridge may be treated as a public nuisance and abated accordingly.” Charter of Wheeling Bridge.
It is said that before injunction, a trial' at law should be awarded. But. trials at law are awarded only where facts are contested; and cases of nuisance are excepted from the benefit even of this rule. “If the thing sought to be prohibited is in itself a nuisance, the court will interfere to stay irreparable mischief, without waiting the result of a trial.” Shelford on Railways, 431.- But what facts are here to be ascertained ? The highway, the obstruction, the injury, are confessed on the record. The whole defence rests simply upon legal exceptions, leaving no fact to be tried.
The acts of Pennsylvania authorizing bridges within her own territory are urged in defence. . To this it is sufficient to remark, that the equitable doctrine of set-off has never been applied to cases of nuisance. And if it were, the bridges on the Alleghany and Monongahela are not a fair equivalent for the navigation of the Ohio, Mississippi, "and their branches, cut off' by the Wheeling Bridge. • When complaint is made or injury shown from, these bridges, then will be time to show their defence. With this case, and the matters here involved, they have nothing to do.
The State is .also charged with laches — standing by and witnessing without objection the defendants' expend their money. This is a strange charge, when it is remembered that Pennsyl-. vania met these defendants, in Congress, and there urged her specific objections, resisted and defeated" a bill for the erection of the bridge that had been introduced by the member from Wheeling, before her remonstrance reached Washington.
She could not follow them into the Legislature of Virginia. And if she had done so, her rights were sufficiently guarded by the 14th section of their charter. Its violation was not to be presumed. But when it became manifest'that, in defiance of its provisions, the river was about to be obstructed, the law officer of the State, her attorney-general, promptly- appealed to this tribunal. What charge of laches could be more . unfounded ? Pending these proceedings, in the fancied belief th'at an advantage would be gained thereby, the work was hurried on to. its completion. Warning was given, by the learned judge before whom the motion was ’ made, that no equity would be thus gained, but that if found a nuisance the bridge must be abated. And this was made one of the grounds’ for then denying the motion. (Judge Grier’s Opinion.) Abatement is the only remedy that can save the public works of Pennsylvania from irreparable injury. It is the condition upon which the defendants in their own wrong obstructed this highway, and it is the penalty pronounced by Virginia for infringing the rights of navigation.
These rights Pennsylvania might protect by abatement of this nuisance by her own act. But the Constitution established this tribunal as one of dignity, wherein a State might sue and obtain redress by due course of law. Its powers and 'duties are defined in No. 80 of the Federalist, and in the Constitution by terms of the most wide and general signification, extending to “ all those cases which involve the peace of the confederacy, whether they relate to the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, or 'between the States themselves.” Comment upon these terms from me would be superfluous. ■ They embrace the very case now before the court, than which none can be conceived more directly or deeply involving the peace of the confederacy. It presents no question of abstract rights, but one of actual existing vested rights, essential to the existence of the State and the welfáre of her people. Her rights of commerce extending between the several States; the right of navigation upon a public river; the use of a highway upon which the value of internal improvements, costing over forty millions of dollars, depends.
Upon these considerations the State of Pennsylvania prosecutes this suit. Declaring it to be consistent with her character to seek a peaceful remedy, her legislature, by unanimous vote in both branches, adopted the following resolutions, in obedience to which-I now appear before this court.
“ Be if resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in General Asseinbly met — That the free and uninterrupted navigation of the. Ohio River as a common highway, is a right belonging to the citizens of Pennsylvania, which being essential to the prosperity of the State, it is the duty of the Commonwealth to assert and defend.
“ That the proceedings in behalf of said State, instituted by her attorney-general in the Supreme Court of the United States, and now pending therein, against the Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company, to' abate the nuisance occasioned by their bridge lately erected across said river, be prosecuted to final judgment, decree, and execution for abatement of said nuisance.”
Having thus presented my proposition in its various brandies, I feel that it is not needful for me to urge upon this court the important considerations which necessarily arise from the case, considerations affecting not , only life and property to an immeasurable extent, but vast commerce, essential State rights, and the peace of the confederacy. They will present themselves to the court with more force than I could urge them. I know not, sir, that it becomes me to say more in this behalf: This only I will add:
In 1765, a distinguished son of Pennsylvania, Dr. Rittenhouse, first conceived the plan of her great works, connecting the waters of the Lakes and the Atlantic with the Ohio River. Seventy years elapsed before the resources of the State were equal to such an undertaking^, But once commenced, it was accomplished. While all other works tending to the same object halted east of the Alleghanies, Pennsylvania forced her way through, thus opening a cheap, easy, and secure water transportation from the Gulf and the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic seaboard. But no sooner had this mighty work been completed, and its revenues commenced to replenish the exhausted treasury of the State, and a prosperous commerce to reimburse her citizens for their heavy taxation, than the flagitious scheme is undertaken to cut her off from the Ohio by a bridge at Wheeling, within fifty miles of her borders.
• When, to prevent so great a wrong, she appeals to the Supreme Court; the work is hurried on ; and, pending her application for an injunction, iron cables are stretched across the channel of a navigable river, interrupting vessels arriving and departing from the ports of Pennsylvania. And before ■ she can be heard in this tribunal, her vessels are stopped on a public highway, their cargo and passengers discharged at Wheeling, and Pennsylvania ports shut up. For less injuries than thése, States have been heretofore prompt to redress their own wrongs, and have rushed swiftly to war. Even under our government, in defence of commercial rights, supposed to be invaded by congressional enactment, the banner of disunion has been unfurled in the South. In the North and East, bordering States, asserting navigation privileges, have resorted to acts of retortion and confiscation, until at length civil war was ready to burst forth on their borders, and rage along their coasts. At a later day, the western States of Ohio- and Michigan, on a mere boundary question, arrayed their military forces against each other, under command of their respective governors. And now, on a mere abstract question, State is seen arrayed against State, with threats and warlike aspect.
To these, what a contrast and example does Pennsylvania this day present. Threatened in her dearest rights, she makes no appeal to force.
When the foundations of this government were laid, and this tribunal established as its corner stone, Pennsylvania was there. She knew that the chief object of the Con’stitution was to substitute the law of reason for the raw of force; and her abiding confidence in its efficacy for every exigency has never been shaken. Her commerce obstructed on a public river, her ports shut' up; she comes this day at the head of no armed squadrons, with no blustering enactments of State sovereignty, with no threatenings of disunion upon her lips. As becomes the keystone of the federal arch, she seeks first a peaceful remedy. She appears as an humble suitor before civil judges, sitting upon their judgment-seat, surrounded by no armed janizaries, by no imperial guards; but in the exercise of their constitutional functions, clothed with an authority more potent, in her estimation, than an army with banners. She asks them to protect a right, deemed the most inestimable among all nations, belonging to her by the law of nature and of nations; guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws of Congress, for the improvement of which millions of her treasure have been lavished, and upon which the welfare of her people depends. She asks them, by simple injunction, to prevent a local corporation from violating, under color of State authority, a right that a world in arms could not wrest from her. How far the wholesome influence of this example may depend upon the decree herein to be rendered, the learned members of this court; better than I am, are able to judge.
The counsel for the defendants, in the brief which they filed, made the following points.
The questions which arise in the cause may be classed under four distinct hea ds: 0
I. Those whidi relate to the regularity of the proceedings in this cause.
II. Those relating to the original' jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, in the case presented by record.
III. Those of a political character, arising out of the alleged interference with the free navigation of the Ohio River, and the supposed regulation of commerce between the States, and preference of one port over another.
IV. Those involving the law in regard to nuisances, and the principles on which a court of equity will interpose, by injunction, to grant relief.
I. Under this head the defendants will insist —■
1st. That the order made by Judge Grier, on the 1st day of August, 1849, was not warranted by practice in courts of equity. That he had no power to do more than grant or refuse the injunction, and that the case has been improperly docketed.'
2d. They will insist that, as the defendants have expressly denied under oath that this suit has been instituted by the State of Pennsylvania, but that it is in fact the suit of sundry citizens of Pittsburg who have Imdertaken to use the name of that State, for the purpose of giving a colorable jurisdiction to this court over the case, without the authority first obtained of the legislature or executive of Pennsylvania; and as the plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence to show that the proper authorities of Pennsylvania have authorized the institution of the suit, the court should either dismiss it, or award a rule against plaintiff’s attorney to show by what authority it has been, instituted.' Maxfield’s Lessee v. Levy, 4 Dali. 330..
3d. The original bill being fatally defective was not amendable, the office of an amendment being not to make a new case, but to correct or improve a bill which contained grounds of equitable relief. McMahon v. Fawcett, 2 Rand. 537.
II. Under this head, defendants will insist that, if the suit has been regularly docketed and instituted by the direction of the proper authorities of the State of Pennsylvania, the bills of the plaintiff do not disclose a case properly cognizable in this court. They show no such interest on the part of the State of Pennsylvania in the matter in controversy as would make her a competent plaintiff in this court. She should show, on the face of her bill, a direct and immediate interest in the State of Pennsylvania, in her corporate -capacity. A remote consequential injury will not do; injury to her citizens is not sufficient; they are.competent plaintiffs, and can seek their own redress.
2d. The alleged injury to the public works of Pennsylvania, and through them to her revenues, is remote, contingent, and speculative. The bridge is in another State, and not within fifty miles of any of her improvements. If it should prove detrimental to them by the greater facilities which it might afford for crossing the river at Wheeling, and the -inducements which it might hold out to trade and travel to seek that point, it would be a case of damnwm absque_ injuria.
3d. The allegation of injury to the ship-builders of Pennsylvania is obnoxious to the objections taken to the original bill; the injury is not to the State, but to her citizens, and it is.indirect and consequential.
4th. If there be injury to the public, it is not to the Pennsylvania public, but to the, great public'of the Union. If it interferes with and regulates commerce, it is the commerce of the Union, aqd not of Pennsylvania, and the government of the Union alone can redress it by a proceeding-in behalf of the United States, at the instance of her attorney-general. Commonwealth v. Charles-town, 1 Pick. 184; see Mitford, Eq. PI. 210 ; Story Eq. PI. sects. 503 - 510 ; Fowler v. Lindsey, 3 Dali. 411; Bowne v. Arbuckle, 4 Dali. 338 and note 2; New York v. Connecticut, 4 Dali. 3; United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch, 115; McNutt, v. Bland, 2 How. 9, opinion of Daniel, J., and cases reviewed by him ; Bank of Kentucky v. Wister, 2 Pet. 318 ; Georgetown v. Alexandria Canal, 12 Pet. 91; United States Bank v. Planters Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheat. 904; Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dali. 382 ; Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Dali. 8; McCormick v. Sullivant, 10 Wheat. 199; Fisher v. Cockrell, 5 Pet. 248; Reed v. Marsh, 13 Pet. 153;1 Kent, Com.' 344, and cases cited; Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 468; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657; Spooner v. McConnell, 1 McLean, 338, 359; Rogers v. Linn, 2 McLean, 126.; 8 Cow. 146.
III. The charter was granted for great public objects, and in-' tended to advance and facilitate commerce between the States, and the. safe, speedy, and certain transmission of the mails between the eastern and western sections of the Union, and therefore commends itself to the favorable regard of the government, to which is confided the power and the duty of regulating species of commerce. The duty of the government of the United States is quite as imperative to protect and regulate the trade across, as up and down, the channels of navigable streams.
The privilege of navigating the river is not paramount to, but only coequal with, the privilege of crossing it. The bridge is not a regulator of commerce in any other sen.se than a railroad or a ferry would be. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 203;. People v. Saratoga and Rens. Co. 15 Wend. 134; Thompson v. People, 23 Wend. 552 ;.Corfield v. Coryell,'! Wash. C. C. R. 378 ; Norris v. Boston, and Smith v. Turner, 7 How. 283; Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 48; Commonwealth v. New Bedford B. Co. 1 Wood-bury & Minot, 423; Wilson v. Blackbird Marsh Co. 2 Peters, 250.
IY. The case stated is not one for relief, even at law, and' much less in equity, by injunction:
1. The bridge is not a nuisance.
2. The injury is not direct, inevitable, and irreparable ; on the contrary, by complainant’s own showing, it is remote, contingent, and susceptible of compensation in damages.
3. Nor is it peculiar and exclusive, either to the citizens or to the State of Pennsylvania.
4. The course of Pennsylvania, in chartering and constructing bridges over navigable waters within- her limits, and in remaining passive until the whole capital of the company had been expended, should induce the court, even if that case were in other respects a proper one for relief,to withhold its aid under the peculiar circumstances' of this case. Story, Eq. sect. 959, a & b; Eden on Injunctions, 162; Bonaparte v. Camden & Amboy R. R. Co. 1 Bald. C. C. R. 218; Attorney-General v. Cleaver, 18 Vesey, 218, and authorities cited; Earl Ripon v. Hobart, 1 Coop. Select Cases, 333; Story, Eq. sect. 922 — 925, and cases cited; Pierce v. Dart, 7 Cow. 609; Lansing v. Smith, 8 Cow. 146; Semple v. London and Birmingham R. R. Co. 1 Railw. Cases, 159; Butler v. Kent, 19 Johns. 223; Laws of Pennsylvania, 1846, 309; Palmer v. Cuyahoga County, 3 McLean, 226; Jones v. Royal Canal Co. 2 Molloy, 319; Williams v. The' Earl of- Jersey, 1 Craig &, Phil. 96; Pelcher v. Hart, 1 Humph. Ten. Rep. 524 ; Rex v. Russel, 13 Com. L. R. 254; Crenshaw v. State R. Co. 6 Rand. 245; Hulme v. Shreve, 3 Green, Ch. Cases, 116; Elingworth v. Manchester and Leeds R. R. 2 Railw. Cases, 187; Attorney-General v. Eastern Co. R. R. Co. 3 Railw. Cases, 337.
After the argument of the cause, the court passed the interlocutory order which is reported in 9 How. 657.
The coming in of the report of the commissioner is mentioned in 11 How. 529, together with the order of court passed thereon. That report was a printed volume of more than seven hundred pages, accompanied by numerous engravings, and including a great mass of evidence upon geographical, statistical, and scientific-points. It is very difficult to give an abstract of it, but the attempt must be made.
“ The questions referred to the commissioner to report upon, were the following, viz., whether the suspension-bridge, mentioned in the pleadings in this cause, erected over the Ohio River at the city of Wheeling, by the defendants, is or is not an obstruction to the free navigation of the Ohio River, at the place where such bridge is erected across the sáme, by vessels propelled by steam or sails, engaged, or which may be engaged, in the commerce or navigation of said river; and, if it is such an obstruction, what change, or alteration, if any, can be made, consistent with the continuance of the bridge' across the said river, that will remove the obstruction to the free navigation by such vessels engaged in the commerce and navigation of such! river; and also to report the proofs which should be produced before me by the respective parties; with power to,appoint a clerk to assist in the execution of the order of reference; and also with power, if I should deem it necessary, to appoint a competent engineer, whose duty it should be, under my directions and instructions, as such commissioner,'to take the measurement of said bridge, its appendages and appurtenances, and the localities connected therewith, and make a report to me upon the same.”
The report commenced with a general examination of suspension-bridges, with their adaptation to the passage of railroad cars. Upon this subject the commissioner expressed himself .as follows:
“ My opinion, therefore, is, that if the Wheeling Bridge, in its-present form, is not permitted to stand, the idea that it can be so altered in its reconstruction, as to adapt it to the purposes of ordinary railroad transit, should not be entertained, and should not be" permitted to affect the decision of the question of the practicability of altering or reconstructing' such.bridge, so as to obtain a revenue therefrom, which might be of sufficient importance to the stockholdérs of the bridge company to induce them to contribute means to enable the corporation to-rebuild the bridge.”
The report then contained an account of the commercial statistics of the Ohio River, with the velocity of its current, its floóds, &c. The bridge was described as follows:
“ The length of the bridge is 980 feet between the faces of the two abutments; and 1010 feet between the centres of the towers, at each end, which' support the cables upon which the flooring of the bridge is suspended. The eastern towers, to the top of the saddles, are 153j feet high above the level of zero of the water-gauge which indicates the depth of water upon the Wheeling Bar; and the' western towers are 132| feet.
“ The deflection of the catenary below the top of the saddles of the eastern towers, On the 26th of October, 1850,' when the temperature of the atmosphere was 44° of Fahrenheit, was 68 feet 5 inches. And the point of its greatest deflection was 544 feet and 7 inches from the centre of the ¿astern towers. The deflection would probably be about 15 inches less at the temperature of zero of -Fahrenheit, and about 15 inches more at a temperature of 90° above. The temperature of the atmosphere, at the time the measurement was made, was at about a medium between the extreme cold of winter and the greatest heat of' summer, and therefore gives the mea'n deflection.
“ The ascent of the flooring of the bridge at the east end, for 172| feet from, the centre of the tower, rises on a grade of 1.28 feet to the 100; and for 40 feet further it rises on a- grade of 0.625 of a foot to the'hundred feet. From thence it descends on a grade of 0.925 of a foot to the hundred, for 40 feet; and from thence to the centre of the western tower,-on a grade of 4;08 feet to every hundred feet.
“ At the highest part of the bridge, for the distance of about 56 feet in width, there is a clear headway, for the passage of steamboats with their chimneys standing, of 92 feet above zero of the Wheeling water-gauge; of 91 feet above extreme low water. This headway commences about 174 feet from the top of the face of the eastern abutment, and terrfiihates 750 feet from the same point in the western al utment. But this space of 56 feet in width is not over any part of the river at extreme low water.
“ The bank of the river, under the eastern extremity of the 56 feet space,'is 10.21 feet higher -than the level of zero of the Wheeling gauge ; and under the western extremity, the height of the bank above zero of the gauge, is 3.81 feet. And it is only 22 inches below zero of the gauge at a point 1Q0 feet further west. The water upon the Wheeling' Bar must “therefore be about 4 feet-deep to bring the easterly edge of the stream to a point under.the western extremity of the-56 feet. And it must be more than 15 feet deep upon the bar to enable a steamboat drawing 5 feet to avail itself of the 91 feet of clear' head-way above low-water mark, for the whole width of 56 feet.
“ It follows; from this statement of the facts, that a steamboat drawing five feet, and whose chimneys are' 79i feet high, or over, can never pass under -the apex of the bridge, at any stage of the water, without lowering her chimneys. And. boats drawing 4 feet and having chimneys as high as '86 feet, can never pass under any part of the bridge, without lowering, even in stages of water between 4 and 12 feet high on the Wheeling Bar. This is in accordance with the -testimony, which shows that the Cincinnati, whose chimneys, according to the measurement of the engineer, were but 84.7 feet high, had to lower them to pass under the bridge, even in the lowest stages of the water upon which she. ran.”
Upon the question whether or not the bridge was an obstruction to sailing vessels, the commissioner reported as follows :
“ I therefore decide and report that the suspension-bridge at Wheeling, mentioned in the order of reference, is not an obstruction of the free navigation of the Ohio River, at the place where it is erected over the. same, by any vessels propelled by sails, which have been engaged in the commerce or navigation of the river since such bridge was erected, or which will probably be engaged in such navigation and commerce at any future time during the existence of such bridge.”
Upon that branch of the question which related to the bridge being an obstruction to steamboats, the report contained a description of the boats and the height of the chimneys of some of them ; and came to the following conclusion :
“ A greatnumber of witnesses have been examined on both sides in reference to the question whether the process of lowering such chimneys as are carried upon the Pittsburg and Cincinnati packets, and others of the largest class of boats which navigate the waters of the Ohio, is not attended with injury to the chimneys, delay to the boats, and danger to the limbs and lives of the passengers, or of the officers and crew.
“ So far as the question depends upon opinion merely, there is a very great conflict in the testimony of'the witnesses. But when we examine the facts testified to by them, I think there is a decided preponderance of testimony in favor of the affirmative of the question.
“ Even with the smaller and shorter chimneys on the boats which pass through the Louisville and Portland Canal, where the boats proceed very slowly, and lower and raise their chimneys at leisure, accidents frequently occur to • the chimneys; though, from the nature of the navigation through the canal, the procéss of raising and lowering does not produce much delay there, in ordinary cases. It is easy to perceive, that if the four, five, or six rings, let down upon boats that pass the canal, should fall, and break from their hinges, as they sometimes do, the lives of the passengers and crew, or of some of them, would necessarily be endangered.
“ The very elevated as well as large chimneys used upon the Pittsburg and Cincinnati packets, and other boats of that class cannot, certainly, with any facility or safety, be lowered by hinges at the tops. They are, therefore, obliged to lpwer them at the hurricane deck, by the means of a derric. The weight of the parts of the two chimneys which must be let down, upon these large boats, is estimated by the witnesses to be.from three to four tons. This enormous weight hanging over the cabin, or rather over the berths of the passeng\ rs, in the process qf lowering, would probably prove disastrous in the extreme, if by any accident the chimneys should come down by the run; which is very likely to occur, from the carelessness or stupidity of the green hands that the owners and officers of Western boats are so often obliged to employ.”
The report then discussed the increased danger in lowering the chimneys, resulting from the velocity of the river; and then examined the question whether such high chimneys were necessary for obtaining the maximum of speed. The conclusion arrived at was, that they were necessary. Upon this general branch of the question the commissioner reported as follows :
“ It would be a great injury to commerce, and .to the community to have the benefit of a fair competition, between river navigation and railroad transit, destroyed by any unnecessary obstruction of either. And if railroads can be carried across our large Western rivers, without impairing the navigation, it is proper that it should be done. Certainly, if this beautiful and beneficial structure, which has been thrown across the eastern branch of the Ohio at Wheeling, at so much cost, can remain as it is, without injury to the commerce and navigation of the river, no one should desire its removal or alteration.
“ But, upon a full examination of the subject, or rather such an examination as T have been enabled to give it, in a limited time, and without the aid of counsel, I have arrived at the con-, elusion, and do accordingly decide and report, that the Wheeling Suspension-Bridge, referred to in the pleadings and proofs in this cause, is an obstruction of the free navigation of the Ohio, at the place where it is erected across the same, by vessels propelled by steam, which are now engaged in the commerce and navigation of that river, and by such vessels as will undoubtedly be engaged in such navigation and commerce hereafter, at that place ; while such bridge is permitted to remain without very material alterations.”
The commissioner then proceeded to- discuss the question, whether the bridge could be. so altered as not to impede the free navigation of the river by steamboats; and examined eight different plans for effecting this' object. The result was thus stated:
“ I therefore conclude that it is practicable to. alter the construction of the present bridge, so that it will not bé an obstruction to the1 free navigation of the Ohio, consistent with the continúanos of the bridge across the river at the place where it is now erected.
“And I further decide and report that the change, or alteration, which can and should be made, in the construction and existing condition of the bridge, to remove the obstruction which now exists .to the free navigation of the river at that place, by steamboats, is to raise the suspension-cables, and the flooring^ of the bridge, in such a manner as to give a level headway, at least three hundred feet wide, over a convenient part of the channel of the river, of not less than one hundred and twenty feet above the level of zero on the Wheeling water-gauge; and below the lowest projections of the flooring of the bridge, and the greatest deflections of the suspension-cables, at a medium temperature of the atmosphere.
“ It will be seen that, in fixing this elevation for the altered bridge, I have made no provision for a greater amount of headway should the future wants of travel and commerce upon this part of the river require it. But I have adopted this height as being ample for the present demands of steamboat navigation, and upon the supposition that the dimensions of the boats running on the Ohio, from places above the bridge, and the heights of their chimneys, have about reached- their maximum, for Convenient running, or for profit.
“ It is true, some of the boats running below the falls are a little longer, and have more breadth of beam, than any of the Pittsburg and Cincinnati packets', and have chimneys a few feet higher. But they have also a greater depth of hold and draw more water; and are not, therefore, so well adapted to the navigation of the upper part of the' Ohio, where the river is narrower, and the channel more sinuous.
“ Possibly, if the contemplated improvement at the falls of the Ohio should be made, boats of a larger class and with taller chimneys might be found profitable, in carrying on a direct trade between Pittsburg and New Orleans, or. between the former place and St. Louis. But as that event is still in the womb of time, and may never have birth, I have not deemed it necessary to, make any farther provision for it, than an elevation of the bridge to the height of one hundred and twenty feet, above the level of zero on the Wheeling gauge, will give them. ■
“ Many of my -calculations in this report were made very hurriedly ; but the engineer, at my request, has examined them all, since the draft of the report was prepared, and has not discovered any errors in them. I have reason to believe, therefore, that they are all correct. R. Hyde Walworth, Com.”
To this report exceptions were filed both upon the part .of the complainant, and respondent. On the part of the State of Pennsylvania the exceptions were as follows:
Complainant's Exceptions. And now comes the complainant, by her counsel; and as to the report of the special commissioner, Hon. R. H. Walworth, herein made at the last term, the said complainant excepts as follows:
1. To so much of said report, on page 30, as decides that the suspension-bridge, at Wheeling, is not an obstruction of the free navigation of the Ohio River «at the place where it is erected over the same, by any vessels propelled by sails, which have been engaged in the commerce or navigation of the river since such bridge was. erected, or which will probably be ■ engaged in such navigation and commerce at any future time during the existence of such bridge; and, also, in the particulars, that said report does not provide for a héadway for ships and sea-going vessels propelled by sails; and complainant prays that the court will decree that adequate provision shall be made fox the passage of steam-ships and sailing vessels with their masts standing.
2. The complainant also excepts to said report in the particular, that the change in the construction and existing condition of said bridge, which, in page 53 of said report, the commissioner decides should be made to remove the obstruction to the free navigation of the river by steamboats, will not be sufficient to remove said obstruction, because the obstruction aforesaid cannot be removed without raising the bridge to the elevation of at least one hundred and forty-five feet above the level of zero on the water-gauge, and also because the width of a level headway of three hundred feet is not sufficient, but the same ought to be the whole width of the river channel at that place; and, also, because no necessity is shown for any obstruction to the- navigation, by any bridge at that -point, nor is such bridge authorized, or. could be lawfully authorized by any State enactment. Complainant prays that the court may decree accordingly.
3. The complainant also excepts to said report, in the particular, that in fixing the elevation for the altered bridge, in page 53 of said report, no provision is made for a greater amount of headway, should the future wants of travel and commerce of this part of the river require it.
Complainant prays that no bridge be allowed across said channel, or, if any be allowed, that the elevation of such bridge be fixed by the decree of this court at not less than one hundred and fortjzffive feet above the level of zero, on the Wheeling water-gauge, across the whole width of the channel at that place.
4. In all other respects, except the particulars thereof above excepted to, the complainant prays that the report of the commissioner aforesaid be established and confirmed, and that in the particulars herein excepted to, the report be corrected by the' decree of this court, so as to abate the obstruction to the navigation of the Ohio River, created by the defendants by their suspension-bridge, and to preserve the free navigation of the said river, as prayed for in the original and supplemental bills of complainant; and that -a final decree be entered’, as justice and the rights of your complainant may require.
C. Darragh,
Shaler & Stanton,
Robert J. Walker,
For Complainant.
Defendants' Exceptions. The defendants except to the proceedings and report of the commissioner, the Hon. R. H. Walworth, under the order of reference made in this cause, at the December term, 1849, as follows:
1. That the commissioner made an order.for the parties to appear before him, with their witnesses, at Wheeling, on the 15th July, 1850, without ány application for such order from the counsel of either party, but with information from the counsel of the defendants that they could not then be prepared to take the testimony which they desired to take there. Moreover, his immediate adjournment on the 15th July, 1850, to a place several miles from Wheeling, and from the Ohio Riveiy-caused so much inconvenience and expense in the production of witnesses at that time, as to constrain the defendants to defer the examination of many .of them until a future opportunity; which opportunity was afterwards denied to them. Whereby, and by the course pursued by the commissioner afterwards, as mentioned in the next exception, the defendants were prevented from taking the greater part of the testimony which they desired to take at Wheeling.
2. That the commissioner, in his report, has expressed opinions upon the questions on which he was directed to take proofs, without first having taken all the proofs which the counsel for the. defendants saw fit to produce before him, and without reporting those proofs particularly. That, “as a general rule,” he refused to receive or to report any testimony produced by the counsel for the defendants, unless he, the commissioner, considered it relevant to the subject on which the court had directed testimony to be taken by him, if objected to by the opposite counsel; and actually excluded evidence which was relevant, in some instances, which appear in his report; besides establishing rules of decision which prevented the production of all testimony of like tendency to that which was rejected; and,
That, on the 4th day of December, 1850, in the unavoidable absence of the regular counsel of the. defendants, (occasioned by sickness,) the commissioner refused to keep open his proceedings, at Wheeling, until the defendants could have had the presence and advice of that counsel, in relation' to the further production of testimony, refused to grant the defendants further time for completing their proofs, and even refused to report to the court the affidavit on which the application for delay was grounded; notwithstanding, it appears by his report that the defendants finally (being without counsel) asked for a delay of only two days, until the expected arrival of their counsel, and nothing was done, or to be done by the commissioner, in the cause, until the fifth day afterwards, at Pittsburg. And, from that time forward, the commissioner denied to the defendants the opportunity and time, which reasonably they ought to have had, to complete the taking of their testimony before him, though he had repeatedly been informed by their counsel that they desired to produce further proofs at Wheeling, Philadelphia, and elsewhere. See Rep. pp. 845, &c.
3. That the commissioner, knowing that the defendants desired to avail themselves of the expiration of the time limited for making his report, to apply to the court for some explanation or modification of the order of reference, so as thereafter to prevent a repetition of the injustice which, as they considered, had been done to them by the commissioner, did, on or about the 1st of December, 1850, privately apply to the court for an order extending the time for his proceedings, confirming what he might have done after the expiration of the time previously limited, and making- no other change in the terms of the order of reference. And the commissioner suffered the defendants and their counsel to take their course in ignorance that any such application had been made, and then refused to make such a special report as would have enabled them to make a more regular application. See Rep. pp. 645, 648.
4. That the commissioner, in his report, argues to prove that wire suspension-bridges are not adapted to the uses of railroads-; which opinion, or argument, is not only incorrect, but is on a subject not referred to him, and it can only tend to prejudice the defence improperly. See Rep. pp. 17, 20.
5. That the commissioner reports that “ the Wheeling Suspension-Bridge, referred to in the pleadings and proofs in this cause, is an obstruction of the free navigation of the Ohio River, at the place where it is erected across the same, by vessels propelled by steam, which are now engaged in the commerce of that river, and by such vessels as will undoubtedly be engaged in such commerce hereafter, at that place, while such bridge is permitted to remain without material alterations.” Whereas, it appears by the evidence -in the cause, that the said bridge is not such an obstruction. See Rep. p. 45.
6. That the commissioner reports that a change or alteration of said bridge can, and should be made by raising the suspension-cables and flooring, so as to give a level headway at least three hundred feet wide, over a convenient part of the channel' of the river, of not less than 120 feet above the level of zero,.on thet Wheeling water-gauge, and below tbe lowest projections of the flooring of the bridge arid the greatest deflections of the suspension-cables, at a medium temperature of the atmosphere. Rep. p. 53.
7. That the commissioner has decided the questions referred to him upon the assumption that, if any steamboats -navigating the Ohio, however few, can attain an increase of speed, however slight, by using the tallest chimneys, where such- increase of speed is beneficial to travel and commerce, in however small a degree, those steamboats are entitled to the benefit nf such increase, in opposition to the claims of all who require the use of a bridge; whatever may be the extent of mischief resulting from the want of a bridge, or from its extreme elevation. See Rep. p. 45.
8. That the commissioner refused to receive or report any testimony tending to show the amount of inconvenience or injury which the public would suffer by the want of a bridge such as the one above mentioned, now standing at Wheeling. And, on the other hand, he has admitted much testimony, offered by the complainant, to show the magnitude of the present and prospective commerce on the river, and while expressing, in his report, an opinion favorable to the utility of- the tallest chimneys used by any boat on that part of the river, has omitted all reference to the testimony tending to show in how small or great a degree, if' at'all, a reduction of the height of those chimneys,-to the usual standard, would impair their supposed utility, and what proportion of the boats navigating, or likely to navigate the river, do now, or probably will, use chimneys of the extreme héight which he considers useful.
9. That the commissioner appointed Edivin F. Johnson, an engineer, to make the measurements of the bridge, &c., and retained' him in that position after he became aware that the said Johnson was the brother-in-law of one of the counsel for complainant, residing at Pittsburg, and until that fact had been discovered and formally alleged by the counsel for the defendants, and-long after the commissioner must have discovered that the said Johnson was unfit for that position ; and the said commissioner proposes to allow .the said Johnson pay and expenses - as such engineer, though he failed to perform his duties as • such, and was much more diligent in serving the, interests of the complainant in the cause.
10. That the said, commissioner unnecessarily increased the expenses incurred under the order of reference to an enormous extent.
11. That the commissioner has returned ¡the report of the engineer with his own, without permitting the parties to have an opportunity of inspecting it before the commissioner closed the taking of testimony.
12. .The defendants not only except to such parts of the report and proceedings .of the commissioner, as are above pointed out, but they insist on their exceptions, taken before the commissioner,- and reported by him with the testimony.
Alex. H. H. Stuart.
Reverdy Johnson,
Attorneys for Defendants.
These exceptions were fully argued upon both sides; but the great length to which this report must necessarily be protracted, forbids any notice of the arguments of the respective counsel.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice McLEAN
delivered the opinion of the court.
This bill was filed in the clerk's office of this court, in July, 1849. It charged that the defendants, under color of an act of the Legislature of Virginia, but in direct violation of its terms, w'ere engaged in the construction of a bridge across the Ohio River, at Wheeling, which would obstruct-its navigation, to and from the ports of Pennsylvania, by steamboats and other craft which navigate the same. That the State of Pennsylvania owns certain valuable public works, canals, and railways, constructed at great expense as channels of commerce, for the transportation of passengers and goods, from which a large revenue, as tolls, was received by the State. That these works terminate on the Ohio River, and were constructed with direct reference to its free navigation; the goods and passengers transported on these lines were conveyed in steamboats, on the Ohio River; and the Wheeling Bridge-would so obstruct the navigation of that river, as to cut off and direct trade and business from the public works of Pennsylvania, impair and diminish the tolls and revenue of the Staté, and render its improvements useless. The bill prayed' an injunction against the erection of the bridge, as a public nuisance, and for general relief.
In August, 1849, a supplemental bill was filed, stating that, after notice, the defendants, continued to prosecute-their work, and were engaged in stretching iron cables across the channel of the river, which would obstruct its navigation, and it praved that these cables might be abated.
At the December term of this court, 1849, another supplemental bill was filed, representing that defendants had- completed the erection of the bridge, and that it had obstructed the passage of steamboats carrying freight and passengers to and from the ports of Pennsylvania; that it also hindered the passage of steamships and sea-going vessels, which were accustomed to be constructed at the ports of Pennsylvania, and would injure and destroy the trade and business of ship and boat building, which was carried on by the citizens of Pittsburg, and it prayed an abatement of the bridge as a public nuisance, and for general relief.
In their answers the defendants-allege the exclusive sovereignty of Virginia over the' Ohio River, and set forth the act authorizing the erection of the bridge. And they object to the application for an injunction and the relief prayed for, that the persons injured might have remedy in the courts of Virginia; that the State of Pennsylvania had no corporate capacity to institute this suit in the Supreme Court, to vindicate the rights of her' citizens; that the State is only a nominal party, whose name was, without proper authority, used by individuals; that the bridge is a connecting link of a great public highway, as important as the navigation of the Ohio River; that Pennsylvania had set the example of authorizing bridges across the Ohio; that certain engineers of the United States had recommended a Avire suspension-bridge at Wheeling, and gave as their opinion, that "by an elevation of ninety feet, every imaginable danger of obstructing the navigation would be avoided; " that certain reports of committees in Congress recognized the necessity of a bridge at Wheeling, and recommended an appropriation for that purpose; that the headway for steamers left by the bridge is amply sufficient, forty-seven feet above the water, for all useful purposes; and if sufficient draught cannot be had at that height, blowers might be added; that chimneys might have hinges on them, so as to be ioAvered without much inconvenience; that the bridge will not be an appreciable inconvenience to the average class of boats ; that the bridge will not diminish or destroy trade between Pittsburg and other ports, or do irreparable injury to the citizens of Pennsylvania.
The answer admits that the State of Pennsylvania has expended large sums of money in the construction of public improvements, terminating at Pittsburg and Beaver; that a great amount of freight and a large number of passengers do pass over said works, and that a large amount of toll to the State is derived therefrom; that the navigation of the Ohio River is important to the works above-referred to, and that the value thereof-would be affected injuriously if from any cause the passage of steamboats from the city of Pittsburg downAvards were obstructed or impeded. But they deny that their bridge or the cables will have any such effect, or that it can in truth be called a nuisance.
To the actual obstruction occasioned by the bridge, as charged in the second supplemental bill, they set up an amendatory and explanatory act of the Virginia Legislature, passed 11th of January, 1850, declaring the height of ninety feet at the eastern abutment, ninety-three and a half feet at the highest point, and sixty ffwo feet at the western abutment, above'the low-water level of the Ohio River, to be of lawful height, and in conformity with the intent and meaning of the 19th section of the charter.
At December term, 1849, the question of jurisdiction was argued on both sides, and it was sustained by the entry of an. order of reference to the Hon. R. H. Walworth, as special commissioner to take testimony and report —
1. Whether the bridge is, or is not, an obstruction of the free navigation of the Ohio River, by vessels propelled by steam or sails, engaged, or which may be engaged, in the commerce • or navigation- of said river.
2. If an obstruction be made to appear, what change or .alteration in the construction and existing condition of the said bridge, if any, call be made, consistent with the continuance of the saíne across said river, that will remove the obstruction to the free navigation.
At the ensuing term, near its close, the commissioner made his report, together with the report of the engineer employed, and the evidence taken before him, deciding,
1. That the bridge is not an obstruction to the free navigation of the Ohio by any vessels propelled by sails.
' 2. That the bridge is an obstruction of the free navigation of the Ohio by vessels propelled.by steam.
3. That the change of alteration which can and should be made in the construction and existing condition of the bridge is, to raise the cables and'flooring in such manner as to give a level headway, at least three hundred feet wide, over a convenient part of the channel, of not less than one hundred and twenty feet above the level of zero on the Wheeling water-gauge.
To this report several exceptions were taken, by the counsel on both sides.
As this is the exercise of original jurisdiction by this uourt, on the ground that the State of Pennsylvania is a party, it is important to ascertain whether such a case is made out as to entitle the State to assume this attitude. In the second section of the third article of the Constitution, it is declared that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in a case, where a State shall be a party.
In this case the State of Pennsylvania is not a party in virtue if its sovereignty. It does not come here to protect the rights of its citizens. The sovereign powers of a State are adequate to the protection of its own citizens,'and no other jurisdiction can be exercised over them, or in their behalf, except in a few specified cases. Nor can the State prosecute this suit on the ground of any remote or contingent interest in itself. It assumes and claims, not an abstract right, but a direct interest in the controversy, and that the power of this court, can redress its wrongs and save it from irreparable injury. ' If such a case be made out, the jurisdiction may be sustained.
When a State enters into a copartnership, or becomes a stockholder in a bank, orother corporation, its sovereignty is not involved in the business, but it stands and is treated as other stockholders, or partners. And so in the present case, the rights asserted and relief prayed, are considered a's in no respect different from those of an individual. From the dignity of the State, the Constitution gives to it the right to bring an original suit in this court. And this is the only privilege, if the right be established, which the State of Pennsylvania can claim in the prese"nt case.
It is objected, in the first place, that there is no evidence that the State of Pennsylvania, has consented to the prosecution of this suit in its own name.
This would seem to be answered by the fact, that the proceedings were instituted by the attorney-general of the State. He is its legal representative, and- the court cannot presume, without proof, against his authority. In January, 1850, the following declaration passed unanimously by both branches of the Pennsylvania Legislature: " Whereas the navigation of the River Ohio has been, and is now obstructed by bridges erected across its channel, between Zaire's Island and the main Virginia and Ohio shores, so that steamboats and other water crafts hitherto accustomed to navigate said river, are hindered in their passage to and from the port of Pittsburg, and other ports in the State of Pennsylvania, and the trade and commerce, and business of this Commonwealth- interrupted, the revenue of her public works diminished and impaired, and steamboats, owned and navigated by citizens of this State, bound to and from her ports, are subjected to labor, expense, and delay, with hazard to life and property, by reason whereof the said bridges are a common and public nuisance, injurious to the State of Pennsylvania and her citizens, therefore be it resolved, &c.
"2. That the proceedings, in behalf of said'State, instituted by her attorney-general in the Supreme Court of" the United States, and now pending therein against the Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company to abate the nuisance occasioned by their bridge lately erected across the Ohio, be prosecuted to final judgment, decree, and execution, for abatement of said nuisance."
On a question of disputed boundary, between two States, although the inquiry of the court is limited to the establishment of a common line, yet the exercise of sovereign authority, over more or less territory, (i may depend upon the decision. This gives great dignity and importance to such a controversy, and renders necessary a broader view, than on a question -as to the mere right of property. ' But in the present case, the State of Pennsylvania claims nothing connected with the exercise of its sovereignty. It asks.from the court a protection of its property, on, the same ground and to the same extent as a corporation or individual may ask it. And it becomes an important question whether such facts are shown, as to require the extraordinary interposition of this court.
Relief in this form is given, as it cannot be given adequately in any other. The injury complained of, in the language of the books, must be irreparable by a suit at law for damages. It is matter of history, as well as in proof, that Pennsylvania, for many years past, has been engaged in making extensive improvements by canals, railroads, and turnpikes, many of them extending from Eastern Pennsylvania to Pittsburg, by which the transportation of goods and passengers is greatly facilitated, and that a large portion of the goods and passengers thus transported are conveyed to and from Pittsburg on the Ohio River.
On the 18th of December, 1789, an act was passed by Virginia, consenting to the erection of the State of Kentucky put of its territory, on certain conditions, apiong which are the following: " That the use and navigation of the River Ohio, so far as the territory of the proposed State, or the territory that shall remain within the limits of this Commonwealth lies thereon, shall be free and common to the citizens of the United States." Virg. Revised Code,/1819, p. 19. To this act the assent of Congress was given. 1 Stat. at Large, 189.
Thai the Ohio River is navigable, is a historical fact, which all courts may recognize. For many years the commerce upon it has been regulated by Congress, under the commercial power, by establishing ports, requiring vessels which navigate it to take out licenses, and to observe certain rules for the safety of their passengers and cargoes. Appropriations by Congress have been frequently made, to remove obstructions to navigation from its channel.
It appears that Pennsylvania has constructed a combined line of canal and railroad from Pittsburg and Alleghany cities, to the city of Philadelphia, a distance of about four hundred miles, at an expense of about sixteen millions of dollars, all of which are owned by the State. There is also' a railroad from Pitts-burg to Harrisburg which will soon be completed, at an expense of some eight or ten millions of dollars. There is also a slack-water navigation from Pittsburg 'to Brownsville, and up the Yaughegany to West Newton, and there are other lines, of communication between Pittsburg and the East, which are owned in whole or .in part by the State, and from which it derives revenue.
And the witnesses generally say, that any obstruction on the .Ohio River, to the free passage of steamboats, must affect in juriously the revenue from the above public works, as it would divert the transportation of goods and passengers from the lines to and from Pittsburg, to the northern lines through New York. Whilst the witnesses differ as to the amount of such an injury, they generally agree in saying, that any serious obstruction or. the Ohio would diminish the trade and lessen the revenue of • the State. The value of the goods to and from Pittsburg, transported on the above lines of communication, is estimated at from forty to fifty millions annually. And it is shown that the commerce on the Ohio, to and from Pittsburg, amounts to about the same sum.
If the bridge be such an obstruction to the navigation of the Ohio as to change, to-any considerable extent, the line of transportation through Pennsylvania to the northern route through New York, or to a more southern route, an injury is done to'the State of Pennsylvania, as the principal proprietor of the lines of communication, by canal and railroad, from Philadelphia to Pittsburg. And this injury is of a character for which an action at law could afford no adequate redress. It is of daily occurrence, and would require numerous, if not daily prosecutions, for the wrong done; and from the nature of that wrong, the compensation could not be measured or ascertained with any degree of precision. The effect would be, if not to reduce the tolls on these lines of transportation, to prevent their increase with the increasing business of the country.
If the obstruction complained of be an injury, it would be difficult to state a stronger case for the extraordinary interposition of a court of chancery. In no case could a remedy be more hopeless by an action at common law. The structure complained of is permanent, and só are the public works sought to be protected. The injury, if there be one., is as permanent as the work from which it proceeds, and as are the works affected by it. And whatever injury there may now be, will become greater in proportion to the increase of population and the commercial developments of the country. And in a country like this, where there would seem to be no limit to its progress, the injury complained of would be far greater in its effects than under less prosperous circumstances.
As we are now considering the obstruction of the. bridge, not as to the relief prayed for, but as to the form of-the remedy adopted by the complainant, we are brought to the conclusion, as before announced by this court to the. parties, that there is made out a primd facie case for the exercise of jurisdiction. The witnesses who testify to the obstruction are numerous, and the weight of their testimony is not impaired by'the impeachment of their credit, or. a denial of the facts stated by them.
But it is objected, if not as a matter going to the jurisdiction, as fatal to any further action in the ease, that there are no statutory provisions to guide the court, either by the State of Virginia, or by Congress. It is said that there is no common law of the Union on which the procedure can be founded; that the common law of Virginia is subject to its legislative action, and that the bridge, having been constructed under its authority, it can in no sense be considered a nuisance. That whatever shall be done within the limits of a State, is subject to its laws, written or unwritten, unless it be a violation of the Constitution, or of some act of Congress.
It is admitted that the federal courts have no jurisdiction of common-law offences, and that there is no abstract pervading principle of the common law of the Union under which we can take jurisdiction. And it is admitted, that the case under consideration, is subject to the same rules of action as if the suit had been commenced in the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia.
In the second section of the third article of the Constitution it is declared, " the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law-and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority."
Chancery jurisdiction is conferred on the courts of th<" United States with the limitation " that suits in equity shad not be sustained in either of the courts of the United States, in any case where plain, adequate, and complete remedy may be had at law." The rules of the High Court of Chancery of England have been adopted by the courts of the United States. And there is no other limitation to the exercise of a chancery jurisdiction by these courts, except the value of the matter in controversy, the residence or character of the parties, ox a claim which arises under a law of the United States, and which has been decided against in a State court.
In exercising this jurisdiction, the courts of the Union are not limited by the chancery system adopted by any State, and they exercise their functions in a State where - no court of chancery has been established. The usages of the High Court of Chancery in England, whenever the jurisdiction is exercised, govern the proceedings. This may be said to. be the common law of chancery, and since the organization of the government, it has been observed.
In Robinson v. Campbell, (3 Wheat. 222,) it is said, " The court, therefore, think that, to effectuate the purposes of the legislature, the remedies in the courts of the United States are to be, at common law or in equity, not according to the prac tice of State courts, but according to the principles of common law and equity, as distinguished and defined in that country from which we derive our knowledge of those principles."
This principle is not controverted by what is laid down in the case of Wheaton & Donaldson v. Peters, 8 Pet. 658. In that case, the court say, " It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. The federal government is composed of twenty-four sovereign and independent States, each of which may have its local 'usages, customs, and common law. There is no principle which pervades the Union, and has the authority of law, that is not embodied in the Constitution or laws of the Union. The common law could be made a part of our federal system only by legislative adoption. ' When, therefore, a common-law right is' asserted, we must look to the State in which the controversy origindfed." The inquiry, in that easel was, whether a copy-right existed by common law in the State of .Pennsylvania. But, in the case above cited from 3 Wheaton, the court spoke of the remedy. By the act of Congress of 1828, proceedings at law, in the courts of the United .States, are required to conform to the modes of proceeding in the State courts;. but there is no such provision in regard to courts of chancery.
Under this system, where relief can. be given by the English chancery, similar relief may be given by the courts. of the Union.
An indictment at common law. could not be-sustained in the federal courts by the United States, against the bridge as a nuisance, as no such procedure has been authorized by Congress. But' a-proceeding, oh the ground of a private and an irreparable injury, may be sustained against it by an individual or a corporation. Süch a proceeding is common to thé federal .courts, and also to the courts of the State.. The injury makes • the obstruction a private nuisance to the injured party; and the doctrine of nuisance applies. to the case where the jurisdiction is made, out, the same as in a.public prosecution. If the'obstruction b(3 unlawful, and the injury irreparable, by a suit at common law, the injured party may claim the extraordinary projection of a court of chancery.
Such a proceeding is as common and as free from difficulty as an ordinary injunction-bill, against a proceeding at law,'or.to stay waste or trespass. The powers of a court of chancery are as well adapted, and as effectual' for relief - in the case of a private, nuisance,- as in'either of the cases.named. And, in regard to the exercise of these powers, it is of. no importance whether the eastern channel, over which the bridge' is thrown, is wholly within the limits of .the State of Virginia. The Ohio being a navigable stream, subject to the commercial power of Congress,-. and over, which that power has been exerted; if the river be within the State of Virginia, the commerce upon it, which extends to other States, is not within its jurisdiction; consequently,' if the act of Virginia authorized the-structure of the bridge, so as to obstruct navigation, it' could afford no justification to the Bridge Company.
The act of. Virginia, under which the bridge was built, with scrupulous cafe, guarded the rights of navigation. In the 19th section, it is declared " That, if the said bridge shall be so -constructed as'to injure the navigation of the said river, the said bridge shall be treated as a public nuisance, and shall be liable to abatement, upon the same principles and in the same manner that other public nuisances are." And, in the act of the 19th of March, 1847, to revive the first act, it is declared, in the 14th section, " that if the bridge shall be so erected as to obstruct the' navigation of the Ohio River, in the usual manner, by such steamboats and other crafts as are. now commonly accustomed to navigate the same, when the river shall be as high as the highest floods hereinbefore known, then, unless, upon such obstruction being, found to exist, such obstruction shall be immediately removed or remedied, the said last-mentioned bridge may be treated "as a publicmuisance, and abated accordingly."
This is'a full recognition of the public right on this great highway, and the grant to the Bridge Company was made subject to that right.
It is objected that there is no act of Congress prohibiting .obstructions on the Ohio River, and that until there shall be such a regulation, a State, in the construction of bridges, has a right to exercise its own discretion on the subject.
Congress have not declared in terms that a State, by the construction of bridges, or otherwise, shall not obstruct the navigation of the Ohio, but they have regulated navigation upon it, as before remarked, by licensing vessels, establishing ports of entry, ^imposing duties upon masters and other officers of boats, and inflicting severe penalties i'or neglect of those duties, by which, damage to life or property has resulted. And they have expressly sanctioned the' compact made by Virginia with Kentucky,- at the time of its admission into the Union, " that the use and navigation of the River Ohio, so far as the territory of the proposed State, or the territory that shall remain within the limits of this Commonwealth lies thereon, shall be free and com-man- to the citizens of the' United States," Now, an obstructed navigation cannot be said to be free. It was, no doubt, in' view of this compact, that in the charter for the' bridge, it was required to be so elevated, as hot, at the greatest height of the water, to obstruct navigation. Any individual may abate a public nuisance. 5 Bac. Ab. 797; 2 Roll. Ab. 144, 145; 9 Co. 54; Hawk. P. C. 75, sect. 12.
This compact, by the sanction of Congress, has become a law of the Union. What further legislation can be desired for judicial action? In the case of Green et al. v. Biddle, (8 Wheat. 1,)'this court held that' a law of the State of Kentucky,'which was in violation of this compact between- Virginia and Kentucky, was yoid; and they say this court has authority to declare a State law unconstitutional, upon the ground of its impairing the obligation of a compact between different States of the Union.
The case of Wilson v. The Blackbird Creek Marsh Company, (2 Peters, 250,) is different in principle from the case before us. A dam was built over a creek to drain a marsh, required .by the u-nhealthiness it produced. . It was a small creek, made navigable by the flowing of the tide. The Chief Justice said it was a matter of doubt, whether the small creeks, which the tide makes navigable a short distance, are within the general commercial regulation, and that in such cases of doubt, it would be better for the court to follow the lead of Congress. Congress have led in regulating commerce on the Ohio, which brings the case within the rule above laid down. The facts of the two cases, therefore, instead of being alike, are altogether different.
No State law can hinder or obstruct the free use of a license granted' under an act of Congress. Nor can any State violate the compact, sanctioned as it has been, by obstructing the navigation of the river. > More than this is not necessary to give 'a civil remedy for an injury done by an obstruction. Congress might punish such an act criminally, but until they shall so provide, an indictment will not lie in the courts of the United States for an obstruction which is a public nuisance. But a, public nuisance is also a private nuisance, where a special and ah irremediable mischief is done to an individual.
In the case of the City of Georgetown v. The Alexandria Co.(12 Peters, 98,) this court say, " The court of equity,-also, pursuing the analogy-of the law, that a party may maintain ¿private action for special damages, even in case of a public nuisance, will now take jurisdiction in case of a public nuisance, at the instance- of a private person, where he is in imminent danger of suffering a special injury, for which, under the circumstances of the case, the law would not afford an adequate remedy." Where no special damage is alleged, an individual could not prosecute in his Own name for a public nuisance. This doctrine is laid down in Conning et al. v. Lowerre, 6 Johns. Ch. 439. In that case the injunction ' was granted, and the chancellor said, " that here was a special grievance to the plaintiffs, affecting the enjoyment of their próperty and the value of it. The obstruction was not only a common or public nuisance,, but worked a special injury to the plaintiffs."
Chancellor Kent, in the 3d volume of his Commentaries, 411, says, " The common law, while it acknowledged and protected the right of the owners of the adjacent lands to the soil and water of the river, rendered' that right subordinate to the public convenience, and all erections and impediments made by the owners, to the obstruction of the free use of the river as a highway for boats and rafts are deemed nuisances."
In Sampson v. Smith, (8 Simons, 272,) it was held that injury to the plaintiff's trade was sufficient to give jurisdiction against a public nuisance, and that it was not necessary to uSe, in such a prosecution, the name of the attorney-general. And-this was on a bill for the discontinuance of works already erected.
It is said, " the question of nuisance, or not, must, in cases of doubt, be tried by a jury." 2 Story's Eq. 202. In this respect the question is similar to an application for the protection of a patent. Where the right has been long enjoyed, or is clear of doubt, chancery will interfere without a trial at law. Mr. Justice Story says, (Id. 203,) " A court of equity will not only interfere upon the information of the attorney-general, but also upon the application of private parties, directly affected by the nuisance; whereas, at law, in many cases the remedy is, or may be, solely through the instrumentality of the attorney-general."
In the same volume, (p. 204,) it is said, " In regard to private nuisances the interference of courts of equity, by way of injunction, is undoubtedly founded upon the ground of restraining irreparable mischief, or of suppressing oppressive and interminable litigation,' or of preventing multiplicity of suits." Mit. Eq. Pl. by Jeremy, 144, 145; Eden on Injunctions, ch. 11, 231, 238.
" There must be such an'injury, as from its nature is not susceptible of being adequately compensated by damages at law, or such as, from its continuance or permanent mischief, must, occasion a constantly recurring grievance, which cannot otherwise be prevented than by an injunction." " Formerly, indeed, courts of equity'were extremely reluctant to interfere at all, even in regard to repeated trespasses. But now there is-not the slightest hesitation, if the acts done, or threatened to.be done to the property, would be ruinous or irreparable." 2 Story's Eq. 207. ;
In Ripon v. Hobart, 3 Mylne & Keen, 169, Lord Brougham says, " If the thing sought to be prohibited is in itself a nuisance, the court will interfere to stay irreparable mischief without waiting for the result ofia trial; and will, according to the circumstances, direct an'issue or allow an action," &c. Lord Eldon, in the case of Attorney-General v. Cleaver, 18 Ves. 218, appeared to think that there was no instance of an injunction to restrain a nuisance without trial. But in this he was clearly wrong.
The fact that the bridge constitutes a nuisance is ascertained by measurement. The 'height of the bridge, of the water, and of the chimneys of steamboats, are the principal facts to be ascertained. If the obstruction exists, it is a nuisance. To ascertain this a jury is not necessary. It is shown in the report, by a mathematical demonstration. And the other matters, connected with the case, as to the benefit of high chimneys, lowering of them in passing under the bridge,' and shortening chimneys, are matters of science and experience, better ascertained by a report than by a verdict. And. the same may be said of the statistics which are in the case.
The object of the suit was, not the recovery of damages, but to enjoin the defendants from building the bridge which would injure the plaintiff. If the bridge be a material obstruction to the navigation of the Ohio, it is not denied that the plaintiff would be injured. The ground of defence taken and maintained is, that- the bridge is not a material obstruction to Commerce on the river. On this point there is no doubt. A jury, in such a case could give no aid to the court, nor security to the parties. Having had, notice of an application for an injunction, before the defendants had thrown any obstruction over the river, they cannot claim that their position is strengthened by the completion of the bridge.
But it is said, the bridge constitutes no serious obstruction to the navigation of the Ohio ; that only seven steamboats, of two hundred and thirty which ply upon the river as high as Pitts-burg, are, obstructed; and that arises from the height of their chimnej's, which might be lowered at a small expense, in passing under the bridge; that by the introduction of blowers, the chimneys might be shortened without lessening the speed of the boats; that the goods and passengers which are conveyed on the public lines of communication, between Pittsburg and Philadelphia, could be as well conveyed on boats of lower chimneys, and consequently the State, as proprietor of those lines, if at all injured, is injured so inconsiderably as not to lay the foundation of this procedure; that none of the,packets or the other boats .on the river are owned by the State of Pennsylvania.
That the bridge constitutes an obstruction, is shown by the report of the commissioner, the answer of defendants, the proof in the case, and by the admission in the argument of the counsel for the defendants. The report of the commissioner is eon sidered, as to the fact of the obstruction, and the extent of it, of the same force as a verdict of a jury. The report having been the result of a most-arduous and scientific investigation., of the facts, is entitled to the full weight of a verdict. 2 Railway Cases, 330. The fact of obstruction was a plain and practical question, but it was connected with other matters, involving questions of Science, which were to be settled on the opinión of experts, and a report being fairly made, the court will, generally, assume it as a basis of action, unless it shall be shown to . have been made under improper influences, or through a mistake of facts. 1 Railway Cases, 576;' Shelford on Railways, 430.
In his report the commissioner says : " The boats running in that line, and passing the site of- the present suspension-bridge, in 1849, previous to the time when the first cables were thrown across the eastern branch of the Ohio, at Wheeling, were the Clipper, No. 2; the Hibernia, No. 2; the Brilliant; the Messenger, No. 2; the Isaac Newton; the New England, No. 2; and the Monongahela.
" The Clipper, No. 2, came out in March, 1846, was 215 feet long, and had chimneys 64 feet high. The Hibernia, No. 2, came out iii 1847. She was- 225 feet long, and her chimneys were 72| feet high from the water. The Brilliant came out in. February, 1848, was 227 feet long; and had chimneys 71 feet high. The Messenger, No. 2, came out in the Winter or Spring of 1849, was 242 feet long, and has chimneys 76| feet high. The Isaac Newton was 182 feet long, and had chimneys only 63| feet high- The New England, No. 2, was 222 feet long, and her chimneys were 65| feet high. « The dimensions and height of the chimneys of the Monongahela," the commissioner says, " I have not been able to ascertain from the evidence."
•" There were also two other regular packets running past Wheeling in the Spring and Summer of 1849; previous to the -erection of thé bridge; the two Telegraphs, running- as regular packets between Pittsburg and Louisville, The chimneys of the Telegraph, No.' 1, were 80 feet high, and those of the other Telegraph were 79 feet 9 inches high.
" Not more than two or three, of these nine packets had their chimneys prepared for lowering at the close of the navigation in the Summer of 1849. And of the five largest only one of them could have gotten under the bridge on a twenty feet stage of water with the chimneys standing; and that one, the Brilliant, could not have gotten under when the water was more than twenty-one feet upon the Wheeling Bar. And neither of the-two Telegraphs could, have gotten under the bridge at a thirteen feet stage of the water with their chimneys standing."
" If the bridge," says the commissioner, " had been erected in 1847, therefore, and those nine' packets had then been running, two of them could not have - gotten under the bridge for nearly three months, when • the water was thirteen feet and over; two of them would have been unable to get under for thirty-three days, when the /water on the bar was twenty .feet and over; another, the Brilliant, from nineteen to twenty-five days, when the water was twenty-nine feet and over; and the other four as much as ten days, when the water was twenty-nine feet and over, — unless, they had lowered or cut off their .chimneys."'
" The passage of three of the Pittsburg and Cincinnati packets, which were running on the Ohio before the erection of the bridge, had been actually stopped or obstructed by such bridge previous to the order of reference in this cause; the Messenger, No. 2, the Hibernia,- No. 2, and the Brilliant.
" The first of these boats arrived at the bridge on the 10th of November, 1849, on her downward passage, upon a twenty feet stage of water, and had to put off her chimneys before she could pass the bridge. She was .detained there about seven hours, but I believe she did not lose her trip or passengers. She was subsequently detained at the bridge seven hours, and was obliged to cut off her chimneys a second time.'
" On the 11th of November, 1849, the Hibernia, No. 2, reached the bridge on her upward trip. They attempted to get her under the bridge by sinking her deeper in the water with coal ballast. But, in attempting to pass the bridge, the top of one of her chimneys caught upon a projection from the under side of one of the flooring timbers, and injured the chimney so that it had to be taken down and repaired. The boat was detained thirty-two hours at Wheeling on that occasion; and was obliged to hire-another boat.to take her passengers on. to Pitts-burg, except such of them as preferred to cross the. mountains by .the way of Cumberland.
" On the 18th of the same month the passage of the Hibernia, No. 2, was again obstructed by the' bridge on her downward passage; by which she lost an entire trip. Finding she could not get under.the bridge in time to save her trip, she transferred her freight and passengers to another boat, and returned to Pittsburg. And-the passage of the same boat was again obstructed by the bridge in coming up the river last Spring. . On that occasion she arrived .at Wheeling between nine and ten o'clock in the- morning, and finding she could not get under the bridge' she gave up the trip, and landed her passengers, who proceeded east by way.of. Cumberland. .
" The Brilliant was obstructed .by the bridge on her passage up on the 18th December, 1849, and had to wait until her chimneys could be cut off to enable her to pass under the bridge. The chimneys were cut off at' great risk to the lives of those, who were engaged in the operation; and the boat passed under the bridge and proceeded to Pittsburg after a detention of four- or five hours.
" In the Winter and ' Spring subsequent to the erection, of the bridge, the Buckeye State, the Keystone. State, and the Cincinnati, three new packets, were brought into the Pittsburg and Cincinnati lines, in the places of the New England, No. 2, the Isaac Newton, and the Monongahela. They were all of much larger dimensions and had much taller chimneys than the old boats for which they were substituted, and, their chimneys were hinged .and rigged for lowering." The chimnéys óf the Buckeye State were 74 feet 8 inches high, those, of the Keystone 77 feet 5 inches, and those of the Cincinnati 84 feet 7 inches.
" Two accidents have occurred to those new boats in passing under the bridge since they came out. The Keystone State, on her downward passage, the 4th of March last, in attempting to pass under the apex of the bridge upon a thirteen and' a quarter' feet stage of water, could not get near enough to the Wheeling shore to pass under the apex of the bridge. And in attempting to drop down about twenty feet further west, one of the chimneys struck the bridge and tore away all the guys.or fastenings of both chimneys,- except one guy-rod, broke the westerly chimney in two, broke off the hinge from- the other chimney, and tore up some portions of the hurricane deck to which the guy-rods were fastened. And • if the -remaining guy-rod had given way, both chimneys, Aveighing together about four tons, would have fallen down."
A somewhat similar accident, it seems from the report, occurred to the Cincinnati, in October, 1850.
On the practicability and safety of lowering the chimneys a great number of witnesses were examined. .And the commissioner says, although there was great conflict in the testimony as respects the danger to the limbs and lives of the passengers in the operation, yet, he says, when the facts sworn to are examined, there is a decided preponderance against the safety of lowering the chimneys. And he remarks, " The very elevated as well as large chimneys used upon the Cincinnati and Pitts-burg packets, and other boats, of that class, cannot certainly with any facility 6r safety be lowered by hinges at the tops. They are therefore obliged to lower them at the hurricane-deck, by means of a derric. The weight of the I. parts of the two chimneys which must be let down upon those large boats is estimated by the Avitnesses to be from three to four tons. This enormous weight hanging over the cabin, or rather over the berths of passengers, in process of lowering, would probably prove disastrous in the extreme if by any accident the chimneys should come down by the run; which Is very likely to occur, from the carelessness or stupidity of the green hands that the owners and officers of 'Western boats are so often obliged to employ."
And if to the difficulties stated in the report there be added the darkness of the night, a snow storm, or the falling rain congealing on' the roof of the boat and covering it with ice, and a high wind, which generally is experienced in a storm, it would be impracticable, while the boat was proceeding at the rate of ten or twelve miles an hour, to lower the chimneys, and this must be done or the boat must land. During this operation, the pilot, on whom the safety of the boat. and the lives of the passengers in a great degree depend, must, from his position, be in imminent danger.
The expense of lowering the chimneys, if practicable and safe, would constitute no inconsiderable item. The time lost in raising and lowering chimneys is variously estimated by the witnesses at from one to three hours. Take the minimum of such estimate, and, according to the calculation of Colonel Long, the expense of the boat amounts to $8.33 per hour. Each packet will have to lower its chimneys every time it passes under the bridge, which will be, ordinarily, sixty times a season, amounting to the sum of $499.80, a charge on each packet. To this may be. added the apparatus for lowering the chimneys, estimated at $400, which, with its repairs, may be estimated at $100 pejf annum during the life of the boat, which averages five years. And it is in proof that stationary chimneys will last five years, but if subject to be lowered they will only last half that time. The cost of chimneys for-- a boat is stated at $1000, which may be considered as an increased expense to each boat of $200 per annum. These sums added together make a total of $799.80, which sum multiplied by seven, the number of the packets, make the sum of $5,598.60 which the owners of these packets must necessarily pay as an annual tax, by reason of the obstruction of the bridge, if they run their boats and lower their chimneys.
But it is contended that the difficulty of passing under the bridge may be obviated by shortening the height of the chimneys without lessening materially the speed of the boat.
That high chimneys increase the speed of the boat is proved in the case practically and scientifically.
Professors Benwick, Byrne, and Locke say, that by a law of nature the force or velocity of a draft depends upon the height of the chimney; the force and velocity being measured by the difference in the weight between the column of air within the chimney and an outside column of equal height and diameter; so that á reduction of the height of the chimney involves a diminution of that force with which nature supplies air to combine with fuel for combustion, and by consequence there follows a diminution of heat developed in the furnace, of steam generated in the boiler, and of power- by which the. wheel is moved and the boat propelled.
The commissioner, in his report, says, " the deduction of science also shows that the draft is increased by elongating the chimneys." In this question economy of- fuel is not the object to be attained, but the greatest practicable speed consistent with safety. And this is attained, where there is no defect in the furnace, by the combustion pf the largest amount of fuel. Forty-three bushels of bituminous coal are consumed per hour by each of the Pittsburg packets.
The commissioner says,' " In relation to the questipn whether chimneys as high as those now in use upon the Pittsburg and Cincinnati packets,'and some of the larger boats -on the-Ohio, are necessary for obtaining the maximum • of speed desirable in the navigation of the river, there is a diversity of opinion among the witnesses, especially among those who are not- acquainted .with the scientific principles of chimney-draft in reference to the combustion of fuel for the generation of. steam. But I think there is a. great preponderance of the testimony even of that class of witnesses in favor of the necessity of very high chimneys upon the large Ohio steamboats."
And he further iemarks: " Rejecting the deductions of science on the subject, the teachings of expedience show, that as .boats upon the Ohio have been gradually improved in their dimensions, from time to time, and the height of their- chimneys increased, they have been enabled to run. with greater speed, to the evident advantage of commerce and of travel upon the rivers. And the fact .that several different projects, for' procuring-artificial draft, such .as blowers, as an available substitute for the draft of tall chimneys, have been tried upon the Western waters' and have failed and been abandoned, is very strong evidence in-favor of the necessity of natural draft for the combustion of wood and bituminous coal upon the steamboats navigating the Ohio.*
There is no better evidence of utility, than the progress made in the structure of steamboats and of the machinery by which they are propelled. Men who are engaged in navigation learn by experience and adopt that which will be most conducive to • their own interests.
It appears, from thef-statement of Scowden, an engineer, that the chimneys of the first boat, called the Cincinnati, were 84 feet high from the surface of the water when light, and about 74 feet high from the centre of the flues. Her chimneys were shortened 8 feet, and it diminished her speed up stream from a. mile to a mile and a half per hour. Captain Hazlep states that, adding 8 feet to the chimney of the Telegraph, in 1849, increased her speed about half a mile an hour up stream. And by Captain Duval, that the Clipper's chimney being cut off 8 feet, in order to pass the Wheeling Bridge, reduced her speed about three hours between Cincinnati and Pittsburg. And it may be fairly inferred, that a reduction of 20 feet would reduce the speed between Cincinnati and Pittsburg about four hours.
According to this estimate, the cost, of the boat per hour being, as above stated, $8.33, if there should be an average loss of four hours in each trip, it would amount to $33.32. This sum multiplied by sixty, the average number of trips each season, would amount to thé sum of $1,999.20, and this being multiplied by seven, the number of the packets, would make the sum of $13,994.40, an annual loss by the owners of the packets, by reducing the height of their chimneys, so as to pass under the bridge at the different stages of the water.
But it is said these seven packets are the only boats obstructed by the bridge of the two hundred and thirty which ply upon the Ohio, and run to Pittsburg.
The transportation of goods and passengers by these packets will show their relative importance, as instruments of commerce, between Cincinnati and Pittsburg. From the evidence, it appears that they convey about one half of the goods in value and three fourths of the passepgers, between- those cities. Taking the Keystone State as a criterion, each packet transports annually thirty thousand nine hundred and sixty tons of freight, and twelve thousand passengers. The line was established in 1844, and it appears from the proof, that since that time it has transported between the above cities, nearly a million of passengers.
It is in proof that the life of these packets averages five years, when their places in the line must be. supplied by new boats. If to their original cost.of construction, there be added .the expense of running'them for .five years, adding nothing for repairs or accidents, a total sum wilffbe expended of $1,680,000. This amount of capital is appropriated every five year® in "running this line of packets. The structure of the bridge cost less than one eighth of that sum.
The speed of these boats, their excellent accommodations, and their general .good management, recommend them to the pub-.lie, as is shown by the large amount of goods and "passengers they convey. And any change in their structure, or in the production of the propelling power, which shall impede their progress, would nót only impose upon their proprietors a most onerous tax, but it would greatly lessen their profits, by reducing the amount of freight and. passengers. And no part of the amount would, probably, pass to other boats on the river, but to the northern or southern lines, where greater expedition is given.
In the report of the commissioner, a statement is' made of the stages of water, at Wheeling, for twelve years, beginning on the 10th of March, 1838, and ending on the 9th of the same month, 1850..
The highest part of the bridge, by actual measurement from the ground, is 91.31 feet. This elevation is only at a single point, two hundred and eighty-four feet from the face of the eastern abutment. From the apex it deflects east and west, being at the distance of forty feet westward only 89.48 feet above the ground, and at the same distance east only 89.77 feet above the ground. The chimneys on the seven packets require a space of about thirty feet in width to pass under the bridge within the eighty feet allowed, and the depth of water and a sufficient beadway, must be deducted, to show the height of the bridge for the passage of boats. The headway required, as appears from the report of the engineer, should be between the tops of the chimneys and the lowest parts of the bridge, from two to three feet. This would reduce the space, say two feet and a half to 87.27 feet.
In the twelve years above stated, the water was at the stage of twenty-one feet and over, two hundred and nineteen days; consequently no boat, whose chimneys were 66| feet high, could have passed under the bridge. Twent-y-one feet of water, are substituted for twenty feet in the table 'reported, that statement allowing a foot of water below the measurement. The water, in the above period, was twenty-six feet and over, eighty-three days, during which time no boat could have passed under the bridge "whose chimnéys were 62 feet high. The water was twenty-eight feet and over, fifty-five days during the twelve years, which would have prevented a boat from' passing under the bridge, whose chimneys were 60 feet high. Within the same period, the water was sixteen feet and' over, five hundred and thirty-four days; consequently boats, whose chimneys were 72 feet high, during that whole time could not have passed under the. bridge.
In his report, the commissioner says, " The bridge is nine hundred and eighty feet between the bases- of the two abutments. At the highest point of the bridge, for the distance of .about fifty-six feet in width, there is a clear headway, for'the' passage of steamboats with their chimneys standing, of 91 feet above extreme low water. But this spacé of fifty-six feet in width is not over any part of the', river at extreme low water. The water upon the Wheeling Bar must be about four feet deep, to bring the easterly edge of the stream under the western extremity of the fifty-six feet. And it must be more than fifteen feet deep upon the bar to enable a steamboat, drawing five feet, to avail itself of the ninety-one feet headway above low-water mark, for the whole width of fifty-six feet."
" .It follows,, from this statement of facts, that a steamboat, drawing five feet of water, and whose chimneys are 79J feet high or over, cán never pass under the apex of the bridge, at any stage of the water, without lowering her chimneys."
From the data referred to, the defendants'counsel contend that in a few years, at most, there will be a concentration of railroads at Wheeling, and at other places on the Ohio, connecting the Eastern with the Western country, which, from their speed and safety, must take from the river the passengers and a considerable portion of the freight now transported in steam? boats. That these rOads, crossing the Ohio River, will reach the commercial ports of the interior,.and diffuse a larger amount of commerce than that which is now transported on the Ohio. And it is intimated that the Wheeling Bridge may be used by the railroad cars; but it is clearly proved, that the bridge is not calculated for such a transportation.
However numerous these roads may be, there can be no doubt, that, like similar roads in other parts of the country, their cars will be loaded with freight and passengers. But it may not follow that the Ohio and our other rivers will be deserted, or their business reduced. We have an extent of river coast, counting both shores, exceeding twenty-five thousand miles, through countries the most fertile on the globe. This is a greater distance than the combined railways of the world. That our railroads, as avenues of commerce, may develop our resources in á greater-degree than is now anticipated, must be the desire of every one. But the great thoroughfares, provided by a beneficent Providence, should neither be neglected nor abandoned. . They will still remain the great arteries of commerce.
Past experience teaches us, that however the facilities of commerce may be multiplied, her tracks will be filled with productions which énricffthe country and add to the comforts and enjoyments of its rapidly increasing population. The rewards, of labor will give an .irresistible impulse to enterprise which must secure to. our country a prosperity unequalled. in history. Our internal commerce is more than three times as great as our foreign, and the increased lines of intercourse will cause both rapidly to advance. The protection of the river commerce is by no means hostile to any other. The multiplication of commercial facilities will, in the same proportion, increase the.articles of trade.
If viaducts must be thrown over the Ohio for the contemplat-ed railroads, and bridges for the accommodation of the numerous and rising cities upon the banks of the river, it is of the highest importance that they should not be so built as materially to obstruct its commerce. If the obstructions which have been demonstrated to result from the Wheeling Bridge, are to be multiplied as these crossways are needed, our beautiful rivers will, in a great measure, be abandoned. An experience of forty years shows how much may be done in the structure of steamboats, in the improvement of then machinery, and the propelling power, to increase the speed and the comfort of that mode of transportation, under a continued reduction of expense. But if the limit of advance, in this respect, has already been passed; and a retrograde movement is necessary, by rejecting the improvements recommended by ingenuity and experience, we close our eyes to one great source of our prosperity. What would the West-now have been if steam had not been introduced upon our rivers, and their navigation had not remained free? Without an outlet for the products of a prolific soil and the instruments of mechanical ingenuity, the country could have made but little advance.
It is said that the interest of commerce requires navigable waters to be crossed,and that in such a case the inquiry should be, whether the benefit conferred upon, commerce by the cross route, is not greater than the injury done. In the case of the King v. Sir John Morris, 1 Barn. & Adol. 441, it was held, that the injury cannot be balanced against the benefits secured. And in the case of the King v. George Henry Ward, 4 Ad. & El. 384, it was held, where the jury found that an embankment complained of was a nuisance, but that the inconvenience was counterbalanced by the public benefit arising from the alteration it amounted to a verdict of guilty.
If the obstruction be slight, as á draw in a bridge, which would be safe and convenient for the passage of- vessels, it would not be regarded as a nuisance, where proper attention is given to raise the draw on the approach of vessels. Of this character is the complaint of the plaintiff against the bridge, that it obstructs sea-vessels built at Pittsburg. Sails cannot be used to advantage on the Ohio - or the Mississippi, consequently there can be no' necessity of "raising the masts until it becomes necessary to hoist-the sails. Such vessels float down the river or are tówed by steam-vessels,
It is true the injury done to the State of Pennsylvania may seem to be small, when compared to the magnitude of this subject. It applies to all our rivers, and affects annually a transportation of many millions of passengers, and a commerce worth not less than six hundred millions of dollars. It would be as unwise as it is unlawful to fetter, in any respect, this vast commerce.
In- all the charters, granted for the construction of bridges over navigable waters, it is believed all the States, not excepting Virginia, have provided that their navigation should not be obstructed.
The Bridge Company had legal notiee of the institution of the suit, and of the application for an injunction to stay their proceedings, before' their cables were throw;n across the river. This should have induced them to suspend, for a time, their great work, alike- creditable to the enterprise of their citizens, and the genius and science of the engineer who planned the bridge and superintended its construction. It is a matter of regret that, by the prosecution and, completion of the bridge, they have incurred a high responsibility.
For the reasons and facts stated, we' think that the bridge obstructs the navigation of the Ohio, and that the State of Pennsylvania has been, and will be, injured in her public works, in such manner as not only to authorize the bringing of this-suit, but to entitle her to the relief prayed.
' Believing, from the estimates in the case, that the obstruction to the navigation.of the river may be removed by elevating the bridge, at an expense which, when added to the original cost, will leave a reasonable profit to the stockholders, on the entire capital expended, we have endeavored to ascertain, the kwest point of elevation which will secure this object. And, on a full "view of the evidence, we are brought to the conclusion, that an elevation of the lowest parts of the bridge.for three hundred.feet over the channel of the river, not less than one hundred and eleven feet from the low-water mark, will be sufficient — the flooring of the bridge descending from the termini of the elevation, at the- rate of four feet in the hundred ; this will give a level headway for boats of three. hundred feet in width, and will enable those whose chimneys are eighty feet high to pass under the bridge when the water is thirty feet deep from the ground, leaving the tops of the chimneys two feet below the lowest parts of the bridge. If this or some other plan shall not be adopted which shall relieve the navigation from obstruction, on or before the 1st day of February- next, the bridge must be abated.
"We do riot deem it necessary to provide against the floods, which seldom occur, and-which, when at the highest, overwhelm the lower parts of our cities and towns on the banks of the Ohio, and necessarily suspend, for a short time, business upon the river.