Union Bridge Company v. United States
Decision Date | 25 February 1907 |
Docket Number | No. 431,431 |
Citation | 51 L.Ed. 523,204 U.S. 364,27 S.Ct. 367 |
Parties | UNION BRIDGE COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This is a proceeding in the nature of a criminal information in the district court of the United States for the western district of Pennsylvania against the Union Bridge Company, a corporation of Pennsylvania, owning and controlling a bridge across the Allegheny river near where it joins the Monongahela river to form the Ohio river,—the Allegheny river being a navigable waterway of the United States, having its source in New York and being navigable in both New York and Pennsylvania.
Stating the matter generally, the Secretary of War found the bridge to be an unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the Allegheny river, and required the Bridge Company to make certain changes or alterations in order that navigation be rendered reasonably free, easy, and unobstructed. These alterations, it was charged, the company wilfully failed and refused to make. Hence the present information against it. There was a verdict of guilty, followed by a motion in arrest of judgment, which motion being overruled, the company was sentenced to pay a fine of $5,000. To review that order this writ of error is prosecuted.
The information was based on § 18 of the river and harbor act of March 3d, 1899, which provides: 30 Stat. at L. 1121, 1153, chap. 425, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3545.
Legislation similar in its general character can be found in river and harbor acts passed at previous sessions of Congress. Act of 1884 (23 Stat. at L. 133, 148, chap. 229, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3532); act of April 11th, 1888 (25 Stat. at L. 400, 424, 425, chap. 860, §§ 9, 10); and act of September 19th, 1890 (26 Stat. at L. 426, 453, chap. 907, §§ 4, 5). Finally, we have the act of March 23d, 1906 (34 Stat. at L. 84, chap. 1130, §§ 4, 5), which covers the same ground as the act of 1899 under which the present information was filed.
It appears that the Bridge Company was incorporated by an act of the Pennsylvania legislature, approved March 13th, 1873, with authority to construct a bridge over the Allegheny river, in the city of Allegheny. That act contains this proviso: '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 crafts; and the piers shall not be so placed as to interfere with towboats proceeding out with their tows made up, and shall be constructed in such manner as to meet the requisitions of the law in regard to the obstructions of navigation.'
The bridge was constructed in 1874 and 1875, and has been in use since 1875.
In 1902 a petition was sent to the Secretary of War by persons, corporations, and companies in and about Pittsburg, which contained, among other things, these statements:
The matter was referred by the Secretary of War to the proper officers of the Engineer Corps of the Army for examination and report. Such examination was had upon notice to the Bridge Company, and, under date of December 8th, 1902, Capt. Sibert, cap tain of engineers, who conducted the examination, reported and recommended to the Chief of En- gineers that the company be given notice to make certain alterations in its bridge.
On December 16th, 1902, the Chief of Engineers transmitted that report to the Secretary of War, saying: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Superior Court of King County
... ... necessary to give the telephone company a fair return on its ... capital, and enable it to ... Los Angeles, supra; St. Louis v. Western Union Tel ... Co., 149 U.S. 465, 13 S.Ct. 990, 37 L.Ed ... 470, 24 S.Ct. 349, ... 48 L.Ed. 525; Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 ... U.S. 364, 27 S.Ct ... ...
-
Sabre v. Rutland R. Co.
...110, 115, 119, 104 N. W. 709, 113 Am. St. Rep. 612; State v. Railroad Comm., 52 Wash. 17, 100 Pac. 179; Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364, 27 Sup. Ct. 367, 51 L. Ed. 523; Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat, 1, 6 L. Ed. 253; N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Hardison, 199 Mass. 190, 85 N. E. 4......
-
State v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
... ... against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Judgment ... for defendant, and plaintiff brings error ... 362, 14 S.Ct. 1047, ... 38 L.Ed. 1014; Union Bridge Co. v. United States, ... 204 U.S. 364, 27 S.Ct ... ...
-
Philadelphia Company v. Henry Stimson
...341, 4 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1175; West Chicago Street R. Co. v. Illinois, 201 U. S. 506, 50 L. ed. 845, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 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......
-
Table of Cases
...Theatre Ticket Offices v. Banton, 273 U.S. 418, 47 S.Ct. 426, 71 L.Ed. 718 (1927), 441, 1252 U Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U.S. 364, 27 S.Ct. 367, 51 L.Ed. 523 (1907), Union Pacific R. Co. v. Hall, 91 U.S. 343, 23 L.Ed. 428 (1875), 628-29, 638 United Bldg. and Const. Trades Counc......
-
Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Interstate Waters Jurisprudence
...of permitting authority to the executive branch, were upheld 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......
-
Decoding Nondelegation After Gundy: What the Experience in State Courts Tells Us About What to Expect When We're Expecting
...Louis Consol. Coal Co. v. Illinois, 185 U.S. 203 (1902), Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470 (1904), Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U.S. 364 (1907), Standard Oil Co. of N.J. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911), United States v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506 (1911), Interstate Com. Comm'n v......