United States v. Bellingham Bay Boom Company
Decision Date | 18 January 1899 |
Docket Number | No. 21,21 |
Citation | 176 U.S. 211,44 L.Ed. 437,20 S.Ct. 343 |
Parties | UNITED STATES, Appt. , v. BELLINGHAM BAY BOOM COMPANY |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Solicitor General Richards for appellant.
No counsel for appellee.
This suit was commenced in the circuit court of the United States for the state of Washington, northern division. The government brought it under the direction of the Attorney General, to obtain an injunction enjoining the defendant from further continuing a certain boom which it had constructed across the Nooksack river in that state, and to obtain the removal of the same as an obstruction to the navigation of that river.
The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Washington, and in its answer it denied that the boom was an obstruction to the navigation of the river, and alleged that it was duly authorized to construct and maintain it by virtue of an act of the legislature of the state, and that it had completed the structure prior to the enactment of the Federal river and harbor bill on the 19th of September, in the year 1890.
The authority under which this suit was commenced is the river and harbor act of 1890, approved September 19 of that year (26 Stat. at L. 426, 454, chap. 907), the 10th section of which reads as follows:
On the trial it appeared that the Nooksack river is a navigable stream having its source in Whatcom county, state of Washington, and runs through Whatcom county to Bellingham bay, emptying into that bay, and thence into the Pacific ocean. The waters of the river lie wholly within Whatcom county, and they are navigable from its mouth for a distance of several miles towards its source by light water craft. The boom in question, built by the defendant company at a point just above where the river empties into the bay, is frequently an obstruction to the navigation of the river by steamboats and other craft, as the boom crosses the channel of the river and entirely fills it, excepting that there is what is termed a 'trip,' which may be opened and vessels pass through the same on their way up and down the river. This 'trip' is, however, frequently so choked and blocked up by logs and driftwood coming down the river as to render it impossible to open it.
The defendant during the continuance of the boom has from time to time expended moneys for the improvement of the navigation of the river by removing brush, trees, and drift from the mouth thereof, and it has removed trees, snags, and drift from the channel for a distance of from 15 to 20 miles from the mouth of the river. Navigation for boats and water craft has thereby been considerably facilitated, but at the same time the obstruction to the navigation of the river by reason of the existence of the boom is material and at times total. The river is used for navigation by steamboats and small craft for a distance of some miles from its mouth. One of the chief purposes for which the river is used is as an outlet for floating saw logs and timber products to the mills and to market.
The circuit court was of opinion that as the chief value of the Nooksack river as a highway is for the floating of saw logs, that persons and corporations having to use it for that purpose have rights equal to the rights of others to use the river for a highway for boats and vessels, and that a boom at the mouth of the river being necessary for gathering and holding logs is to be regarded as an aid to the use of the river for a lawful purpose, and entitled to protection, the same as a wharf or pier constructed at a place for the convenience of vessels; that the boom was constructed under the authority of the state legislature, and it was for that reason excepted from the provisions of the 10th section of the act of Congress. The court therefore dismissed the bill. 72 Fed. Rep. 585.
The government appealed to the circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit, and that court held that as at the time of the building of the boom there was no act of Congress on the subject, and a state statute authorized the building, it was affirmatively authorized by law within the meaning of the 10th section of the act of Congress. It also held that whether or not the boom was constructed in strict accordance with the terms and provisions of the state statute could not be considered, as that was a question to be determined by the state, and not by the Federal court. On these grounds it affirmed the judgment. 48 U. S. App. 443, 81 Fed. Rep. 658, 26 C. C. A. 547.
It is evident that the first sentence of the 10th section of the Federal act refers to an obstruction created after the passage of the act. The obstruction prohibited is one that is 'not affirmatively authorized by law,' and the section then provides that 'the continuance of any such obstruction, . . . whether heretofore or hereafter created, shall constitute an offense,' and authority is given to the Attorney General to cause a suit of this character to be commenced.
At the time when the boom was constructed, Congress had not by any legislation asserted its authority over nor taken into its own jurisdiction the subject of obstructions to the navigation of this river. The appropriations made by Congress in different years since 1884, for improvements in the Nooksack, among other rivers in the territory of Washington, did not constitute...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Standard Oil Co.
... ... the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the first section of the fourteenth ... to cancel the license authorizing the Republic Oil Company, a foreign corporation, to do business in Missouri, charged ... ...
-
First Iowa Hydro-Electric Coop. v. Federal Power Com'n
...but that Section 9 (b) of the Power Act does not require compliance with an invalid state law (United States v. Bellingham Bay Boom Company, 176 U.S. 211, 217, 218, 20 S.Ct. 343, 44 L.Ed. 437); that the lawfulness of its order depends upon the validity of the Iowa law, which was assumed by ......
-
Minnesota Canal & Power Company v. Pratt
... ... government over navigable streams within the states, incident ... to its power to regulate commerce, the states have full ... of public works in any navigable waterway within the United ... States, does not transfer exclusive control over navigable ... plank roads and turnpikes, steamship lines, wharf companies, ... boom companies, pipe lines) 3 Cook, Corp. §§ 928, ... 932, for citations ... of Crow Wing County, 96 Minn. 276; U.S ... v. Bellingham Bay Boom Co., 176 U.S. 211 ... The ... control by the ... ...
-
Long Sault Dev. Co. v. Kennedy
...v. Cutler Milldam Co., 20 Me. 353, 37 Am. Dec. 56;State v. Godfrey, 24 Me. 232, 41 Am. Dec. 382;United States v. Bellingham Bay Boom Co., 176 U. S. 211, 20 Sup. Ct. 343, 44 L . Ed. 437;Renwick v. Morris, 7 Hill, 575;Pound v. Turck, 95 U. S. 459, 24 L. Ed. 525;Adams v. Ulmer, 91 Me. 47, 39 A......