President, Managers and Company of the Monongahela Bridge Company v. United States
Decision Date | 21 February 1910 |
Docket Number | No. 91,91 |
Citation | 30 S.Ct. 356,54 L.Ed. 435,216 U.S. 177 |
Parties | PRESIDENT, MANAGERS, AND COMPANY OF THE MONONGAHELA BRIDGE COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. D. T. Watson and James H. Beal for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 178-184 intentionally omitted] Solicitor General Bowers for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 184-185 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:
This is a criminal information by the United States under § 18 of the river and harbor act of March 3d, 1899, against the president, managers, and company of the Monongahela Bridge Company, a Pennsylvania corporation.
That section is as follows: 30 Stat. at L. 1121, 1153, chap. 425, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3545.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and a motion in arrest of judgment was made upon various grounds, the principal one being that the section of the above act of 1899 was unconstitutional, null, and void. That motion was denied, and a motion for new trial having been overruled, the defendant was adjudged to pay to the United States a fine of $1,000 and the costs of prosecution. From that judgment the case comes directly to this court under the authority of the proviso in the above act. § 18.
It is essential to a clear understanding of the questions raised by the bridge company that we state certain facts disclosed by the record.
The bridge company was incorporated under an act passed by the general assembly of Pennsylvania in 1830; and in 1833, by authority of that commonwealth, it constructed the bridge in question over the Monongahela river. The structure is known as the Brownsville bridge, between the towns of West Brownsville and Bridgeport. The charter of the company provided, among other things, that 'the erection of said bridge shall not obstruct the navigation of said river so as to endanger the passage of rafts, steamboats, or other water craft.' Pa. Laws, 1829-30, p. 105.
On the 29th of April, 1903, the Secretary of War, Mr. Root, was petitioned by numerous companies and individuals to have an investigation made of the bridge 'as to its obstruction of navigation,' and if it was found to be an obstruction of that character, 'to have the means provided to compel it to be raised or equipped in such a way to relieve river people from the obstruction, making the height necessary to allow free navigation.' The petition proceeded: This petition was referred by the Chief of Engineers to Major Sibert of the Corps of Engineers, for investigation and report. The latter officer reported, amoung other facts, that The Chief of Engineers indorsed that report and recommended that the papers be returned to Major Sibert, with instructions to hold a public hearing, after due notice to interested parties, as required by the law and the orders of the War Department.
Under date of May 23d, 1904, Major Sibert made a report to the Chief of Engineers, from which it appears that the parties interested were given a hearing, all parties being present. That report stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sabre v. Rutland R. Co.
...349, 48 L. Ed. 525; Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364, 27 Sup. Ct. 367, 51 L. Ed. 523; Monongahela Bridge Co. v. United States, 216 U. S. 177, 30 Sup. Ct. 356, 54 L. Ed. 435; Interstate Com. Com. v. Goodrich Transit Co., 224 U. S. 194, 32 Sup. Ct. 436, 56 L. Ed. 729; United S......
-
Crescent Cotton Oil Co. v. State ex rel. Collins
... ... -General, against the Crescent Cotton Oil Company ... From a judgment for relator, defendant ... court of the United State never expressly overrules a case, ... and ... United States deals with facts presented in the case before ... ...
-
Philadelphia Company v. Henry Stimson
...518; Union 51 L. ed. 523, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 367; Monongahela 51 L. ed. 523, 27 Sup. Ct Rep. 367; Monongahela Bridge Co. v. United States, 216 U. S. 177, 54 L. ed. 435, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 356; Hannibal Bridge Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 194, 55 L. ed. 699, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. In Gibson v. Unit......
-
United States v. Schechter
...In Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364, 27 S. Ct. 367, 51 L. Ed. 523; President, etc., of Monongahela Bridge Co. v. United States, 216 U. S. 177, 30 S. Ct. 356, 54 L. Ed. 435, the delegation of power to the Secretary of War to require alteration or removal of bridges which unre......
-
Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Interstate Waters Jurisprudence
...repeatedly in subsequent cases. See e.g., Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U.S. 364 (1907); Monongahela Bridge Co. v. United States, 216 U.S. 177, 192–95 (1910); United States v. Republic Steel, 362 U.S. 482, 492 (1960). 195. See International Paper Co. v. Ouellete, 479 U.S. 481, 494–......