Union Bridge Company v. United States

Decision Date25 February 1907
Docket NumberNo. 431,431
Citation51 L.Ed. 523,204 U.S. 364,27 S.Ct. 367
PartiesUNION BRIDGE COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.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: 'That whenever the Secretary of War shall have good reason to believe that any railroad or other bridge now constructed, or which may hereafter be constructed, over any of the navigable water ways of the United States, is an unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of such waters on account of insufficient height, width of span, or otherwise, or where there is difficulty in passing the draw opening or the draw span of such bridge by rafts, steamboats, or other water craft, it shall be the duty of the said Secretary, first giving the parties reasonable opportunity to be heard, to give notice to the persons or corporations owning or controlling such bridge, so to alter the same as to render navigation through or under it reasonably free, easy, and unobstructed; and in giving such notice he shall specify the changes, recommended by Chief of Engineers, that are required to be made, and shall prescribe in each case a reasonable time in which to make them. If, at the end of such time, the alteration has not been made, the Secretary of War shall forthwith notify the United States district attorney for the district in which such bridge is situated, to the end that the criminal proceedings hereinafter mentioned may be taken. If the persons, corporation, or association owning or controlling any railroad or other bridge shall, after receiving notice to that effect, as hereinbefore required, from the Secretary of War, and within the time prescribed by him, wilfully fail or refuse to remove the same or to comply with the lawful order of the Secretary of War in the premises, such persons, corporation, or association shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars; and every month such persons, cor- poration, or association shall remain in default in respect to the removal or alteration of such bridge shall be deemed a new offense, and subject the persons, corporation, or association so offending to the penalties above prescribed: Provided, That in any case arising under the provisions of this section an appeal or writ of error may be taken from the district courts or from the existing circuit courts direct to the Supreme Court, either by the United States or by the defendants.' 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: 'There can be no doubt whatever that this bridge is an unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the Ohio, Monongahela, and Allegheny rivers on account of insufficient height and the filling in of the river or rivers over which it passes in order to provide approaches for it. We respectfully request that you will investigate this matter, having full confidence that, after making such investigation, you will find it to be your duty to take action against its owners, the Union Bridge Company, under the provisions of § 18 of the river and harbor act, approved March 3, A. D. 1899. . . . It was built of such a low height above the water as to cause the almost complete obstruction of all the packet and tow-boat trade passing from the Allegheny river into the Ohio and Monongahela rivers, and from these rivers into the Allegheny. In building it the width of the river was very materially narrowed, as already stated, by the fills made for the approaches. The river commerce of Pittsburg, as you are aware, is of very great magnitude and importance, and is rapidly increasing in volume. For the last calendar year it amounted to 10,916,489 tons, being about equal to that of the harbor of New York. The extension of the manufacturing industries of Pittsburg up the Allegheny river is making it of much greater importance than heretofore that the navigation to and from that river should not be obstructed. The present time is peculiarly appropriate for action by you. The Union bridge is an old, wooden structure, and will soon need—in fact, it already needs—extensive repairs to make it safe for public use. Therefore, as the bridge in question deprives the community of a reasonable use of the Allegheny river in connection with the river business of this great harbor, we appeal to you to exercise the powers committed to you to abate, or to at least mitigate, this great public nuisance, as you shall find yourself justified by the law and the facts of the case.'

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: 'As required by the law and the instructions of the War Department, a public hearing has been held, after due advertisement, and all interested parties have been afforded an opportunity to present their views. Attention is respectfully invited to the accompanying report on the subject, dated the 8th instant, by Captain Sibert, and to its accompanying papers. In this report Captain Sibert fully discusses all phases of the question, and shows that, without reference to the use of the Allegheny river for through navigation, the bridge in question is an unreasonable obstruction, and practically a bar to the use of that portion of Pittsburg harbor situated on the river. He states that none of the boats engaged in interstate commerce from Pittsburg, south and west, can reach, at low water, a single manufacuring plant or wharf in the cities of Pittsburg and Allegheny on the Allegheny river. He submits a photograph to show that the portion of Pittsburg harbor in the Monongahela river is crowded with shipping, while that portion in the Allegheny has none, all due to the existence of the Union bridge. It is also shown by the evidence that the lower portion of the Allegheny river would be of great importance as a harbor of refuge when ice is running out of the Monongahela river, if it were not obstructed by the Union bridge. He reaches the conclusion, based on the facts developed at the hearing, that, in order to give the shipping at Pittsburg increased harbor room, and to enable it to connect with wharves and manufacturing plants in that part of the harbor located on the Allegheny river the Union bridge should be so raised as to provide a channel-span with a clear height of 70 feet, the same as exists under the bridge known as the 'Point bridge' on the Monongahela river, and the same that will exist under the Wabash Railroad bridge just being built, immediately above the Point bridge. It appears that this bridge was built in 1873, 1874 by the Union Bridge Company, incorporated under authority of an act of the Pennsylvania legislature of March 13, 1873, and that it has been the subject of complaint on the part of the navigation interests practically ever since its completion. Numerous investigations have been made by different engineer officers, who have held public...

To continue reading

Request your trial
332 cases
  • State v. Superior Court of King County
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • January 27, 1912
    ... ... 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.
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1913
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • November 24, 1908
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 4, 1912
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • January 1, 2007
    ...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
    • United States
    • Georgetown Environmental Law Review No. 33-2, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...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
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 71-3, 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...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......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT