Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch

Citations

• 125 U.S. 1
• 8 S. Ct. 811
• 31 L. Ed. 629
• 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1909

Syllabus

<p>On a pure bill of review nothing will avail for a reversal of the decree but errors of law apparent on the record.</p> <p>There must be a direct statute of the United States in order to bring within the scope of its laws obstructions and nuisances in navigable streams within a state; such obstructions and nuisances being offences against the laws of the States within which the navigable waters lie, but no oifence against the United States in the absence of a statute.</p> <p>The provision in the “act for the admission of Oregon into the Union,” 11 Stat. 383, c. 33, § 2, that “ all the navigable waters of said State shall be common highways and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of said State as to all other citizens of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost,' or toll therefor,” does not refer to physical obstructions of those waters, but to political r” -Nations which would hamper the freedom of commerce.</p> <p>Until Congress acts respecting navigable streams entirely within a state, the State has plenary power; but Congress is not concluded by anything that the State or individuals by its authority or acquiescence may have done, from assuming entire control, and abating- any erections that may have been made, and preventing any other from being made except in conformity with such regulations as it may impose.</p> <p>The appropriation by Congress of money to be expended in improving the navigation of1, the Willamette River was no assumption of police power over it. •</p> <p>Congress by conferring tire privilege of a port of entry upon a municipality, dees not come in conflict with the police power of a State exercised in bridging its own navigable rivers below such port. Passaic Bridge Cases, 3 Wall. 782, 793, App. applied.</p> <p>State of Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 13 How. 518, distinguished.</p>