Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Bel - mont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 421

The State of Pennsylvania v. The Wheeling and Bel - mont Bridge Company, et al.

The power of congress to regulate commerce, includes the regulation of intercourse and navigation, and consequently, the power to determine what shall or shall not be deemed, in judgment of law, an obstruction of navigation.

The provisions of the act of congress passed August 31, 1852, (10 Stats, at Large, 112.) in its 6th and 7th sections declaring the bridges over the Ohio River at Wheeling and Bridgeport, to be lawful structures at their then height and position, and requiring the officers and crews of vessels navigating the Ohio River, to regulate their vessels so as not to interfere with the elevation and construction of said bridges, are within the legitimate exercise, by congress, of its constitutional power to regulate commerce.

The said sections of the aforesaid act of congress are not invalid by reason of the • compact, in respect to the free navigation of the Ohio River, made between the States of Virginia and Kentucky, with the sanction of congress at the time the latter State was admitted into the Union.

Neither are they in conflict with the provision of the constitution of the United States, providing that “ no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another.”

As a general proposition it is true, that an act of congress cannot annul a judgment of the supreme court of the United States, or impair the rights determined thereby, especially as respects adjudications upon the private rights of parties ; and hence the decree of this court heretofore rendered in this case, so far as it respects the costs adjudged to the complainant, is unaffected by the act of congress referred to.

But that portion of the decree of this court at the May term, 1852, in the case of the State of Pennsylvania v. The Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company, which relates to the abatement of the bridge, proceeded upon the ground that the bridge was in Conflict with the then existing regulations of commerce by congress, and was executory, depending upon the bridge continuing to be an unlawful obstruction to the public right of free navigation; and that right having since been modified by congress in the exercise of its constitutional power to regulate commerce so that the bridge is no longer an unlawful obstruction, the decree cannot now be enforced. After the passage of thé act of congress referred to, the bridge no longer being an unlawful interference with a public right, thq defendant’s authority to maintain it, in its then position and height, existed from the moment of the enactment; for their authority then combined the concurrent powers of both governments, state and federal, and if these are not sufficient none can be found in our system.

The complainant’s motions for a writ of assistance to execute the decree of the 27th of May, 1852, by the abatement of the bridge and for a sequestration against the corporation and attachment against its officers for disobeying said decree, are therefore refused ; and the motions to punish the contempt of the corporation and its officers in disobeying the injunction granted by Mr. Justice Grier, on the 27th of June, 1854, are also overruled, and the injunction is dissolved. The decree for costs being unaffected by the act of congress, the motion for taxation and award of execution for their collection is granted.

This case was one of original jurisdiction in this court, upon the equity side; and may be said to be a continuation of the suit between the same parties reported in 13 How. 518.

By turning to that case, the reader will perceive that at page 627, a day was given to the plaintiffs to move the court on the subject of the decree. It is now proposed to continue the narrative from that time.

The motion made by the complainant and the motion made by the defendants to dismiss the suit, need not be particularly stated.

In the summer of 1854, the bridge was blown down by a violent storm, and the company were preparing to rebuild it according to the original plan, when the next step in the history of the case was taken.

On the 26th day of June, 1854, in vacation of the supreme court, the State of Pennsylvania, by her attorney-general and her counsel, Edwin M. Stanton, pursuant to previous notice served on the Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company, appeared before the Honorable R. C. Grier, one of the justices of the supreme court of the United States, at chambers, and moved for an injunction as prayed for in a supplemental bill then exhibited. The substance and object of the bill is stated in the subjoined order.

On hearing the bill and affidavits, the following order was made and injunction granted.

The State of Pennsylvania I

v. > In Equity.

The Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company. )

Before the Honorable R. C. GRIER, one of the judges of the supreme court of the United States.

“Whereas, on the 26th day of June, 1854, at the United States court room in the city of Philadelphia, the State of Pennsylvania, by her attorney-general and counsel, exhibited before me, R. C. Grier, one of the justices of the supreme court of the United States, her bill of complaint in equity against the Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company, setting forth, among other things, tha.t the said Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company is about to erect and construct a bridge over and across the eastern channel of the Ohio River at Wheeling, between Zane’s Island and the main Virginia shore, at a less elevation than is prescribed by the decree of the supreme court of the United States heretofore rendered against said company on complaint of said State, whereby the navigation of the Ohio River by steamboats of the largest class will be obstructed, to the injury of the said State; and in the vacation of the supreme court the said complainant hath applied to me for an injunction as prayed for in said bill against the said Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company, and its president, managers, officers, engineers, agents, contractors, and servants, to enjoin them from erecting and constructing a bridge at the place aforesaid at a less elevation than is prescribed by the decree aforesaid, and from doing any act or thing to obstruct the navigation of the Ohio River, as prayed in said bill:

“ And reasonable notice of said application having been given unto the said Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company to appear before me, to resist said application, and the proofs and arguments of counsel being heard, it is considered and adjudged that an injunction, as prayed for in the said bill, be, and the same is hereby, allowed. And it is ordered that the writ of injunction of the United States of America be forthwith issued by the clerk of the supreme court of the United States, under the seal of the said court, against the said Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company, its president, managers, officers, engineers, agents, contractors, and servants, and all persons acting by their instigation, authority, or procurement, or otherwise, commanding and requiring them, and every of them, under the penalty of the law, that they do forthwith and absolutely desist and abstain from erecting and constructing, or causing to be erected or constructed, any bridge, structure, or device, in, over, or across the eastern channel of the Ohio River, at Wheeling, between Zane’s Island and the main Virginia shore, at a less elevation than is prescribed by the decree aforesaid of the supreme court of the United States against said bridge company, entered at the adjourned term in May, 1852, and from stretching, suspending, or placing, or causing to be stretched, suspended, or placed, any iron cables, ropes, wires, or chains, or any timber, structure, material, or thing whatsoever, in, over, or across the said channel, at a less elevation than is prescribed by the decree aforesaid, and from keeping and maintaining any cable, rope, wire, chain, timber, or thing whatsoever, suspended in, over, or across the said channel, at a less elevation than is prescribed by the decree aforesaid, and from doing, or causing to be done, any act or thing to obstruct the free navigation of said channel of the Ohio River.”

“ It is ordered that the marshal of the District of Columbia do forthwith serve said writ.”

And the clerk of the supreme court of the United States is directed to file the bill of complainant on which the aforesaid application and allowance are made, and enter this order and issue the writ of injunction above allowed ; and also, that he issue the writ of subpoena in chancery, to be served by said marshal, requiring said Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company to appear, plead, answer, or demur to said bill within ninety days from the service of said writ.

Given under my hand, at Philadelphia, this 26th day of June, 1854. ' R. C. Grier,