Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co.
54 U.S. 518 (1851)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state-authorized structure that materially obstructs navigation on an interstate waterway, in violation of a congressionally sanctioned compact guaranteeing free navigation, constitutes a public nuisance that the Supreme Court can abate under its original equity jurisdiction when another state demonstrates a special and irreparable injury to its financial interests.
Facts:
- The State of Pennsylvania invested millions of dollars in a system of public works, including canals and railways, which terminated at Pittsburg on the Ohio River and generated significant toll revenue for the state.
- The commercial viability of these public works depended on the free navigation of the Ohio River for transporting goods and passengers to and from Pittsburg.
- Under a charter from the Virginia legislature, the Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company constructed a suspension bridge across the Ohio River at Wheeling, Virginia.
- The Virginia charter for the bridge stipulated that if the bridge were constructed so as to injure the navigation of the river, it should be treated as a public nuisance and be liable to abatement.
- The completed bridge was too low to permit the passage of several large, modern steamboats, particularly the main packets, which carried a majority of the passenger and freight traffic between Pittsburg and Cincinnati.
- These steamboats could not pass under the bridge during common high-water stages without lowering or shortening their tall chimneys.
- Altering the chimneys was proven to be dangerous to passengers and crew, costly for the boat owners, and would reduce the speed and efficiency of the vessels.
- Virginia and Kentucky had entered into a compact, which Congress sanctioned, declaring that the "use and navigation of the River Ohio... shall be free and common to the citizens of the United States."
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Pennsylvania filed an original bill in equity in the Supreme Court of the United States against the Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company.
- The initial bill sought an injunction to prevent the construction of the bridge.
- After the bridge was completed, Pennsylvania filed a supplemental bill asking the court to declare the bridge a public nuisance and order its abatement.
- The Bridge Company filed an answer denying the Court's jurisdiction and asserting the bridge was lawful and not an obstruction.
- After hearing arguments, the Court sustained its jurisdiction over the case.
- The Court then appointed a special commissioner to take testimony and report on whether the bridge was an obstruction and what alterations could remove it.
- The commissioner filed a report concluding that the bridge was an obstruction to steamboats and recommended it be elevated.
- Both parties filed exceptions to the commissioner's report, bringing the case before the Supreme Court for a final decision on the merits.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a bridge constructed over a navigable waterway pursuant to a state charter, which obstructs the passage of licensed commercial vessels and thereby injures the public works and commercial interests of another state, constitute a public nuisance that the Supreme Court can abate under its original jurisdiction?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice McLean
Yes, the bridge is a public nuisance that the Supreme Court can and will abate. A state-authorized structure that obstructs a navigable interstate waterway, over which Congress has exercised its commercial power and which is protected by a congressionally-sanctioned compact, can be abated by the Court when it causes a special and irreparable injury to another state. Pennsylvania has a direct financial interest in the navigation of the Ohio due to its public works, and the obstruction causes an injury for which a legal remedy like damages would be inadequate. An obstructed navigation cannot be considered 'free' as guaranteed by the compact between Virginia and Kentucky, which has the force of federal law. While federal courts lack general common-law criminal jurisdiction, their equity powers are sufficient to remedy a public nuisance that inflicts a special, private injury. The evidence clearly shows a material obstruction to the most commercially significant vessels, and the public benefit of the bridge cannot be balanced against the public right to free navigation.
Dissenting - Mr. Chief Justice Taney
No, the Court lacks the authority to declare the bridge a nuisance and order its abatement. The judicial power cannot be exercised without a law to apply, and there is no federal law declaring such an obstruction a nuisance. Congress has the power to regulate commerce and could pass such a law, but it has remained silent. As the bridge was authorized by Virginia, it is not a nuisance under state law. This case is governed by Wilson v. The Blackbird Creek Marsh Company, which held that a state may authorize an obstruction on a navigable waterway within its borders so long as the state law does not conflict with an act of Congress. The federal law for licensing vessels does not forbid physical obstructions. The judiciary should not step in to supply legislation that Congress has omitted.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Daniel
No, the Court should not interfere for multiple reasons. First, the Court lacks jurisdiction because Pennsylvania is not a proper party; its claimed financial injury is remote, speculative, and merely a pretext for private steamboat owners to sue in the Supreme Court. Second, the power to regulate commerce does not require prioritizing river traffic over other essential forms of commerce, like road and rail, which require bridges. Third, a structure that provides a significant public benefit, like this bridge, cannot be a public nuisance simply because it causes some inconvenience; its overall utility must be considered. The question of nuisance is a disputed fact that should be tried by a jury, not decided by a court of equity on conflicting evidence. This decision is a judicial usurpation of legislative power and an infringement on the sovereignty of Virginia.
Analysis:
This case established the Supreme Court's authority under its original jurisdiction to resolve disputes between states involving obstructions to interstate commerce, acting as a federal common law court of equity. It affirmed that even in the absence of a specific congressional statute prohibiting an obstruction, the Court could find a state-authorized structure to be a public nuisance by looking to the general commercial power of Congress, federalized interstate compacts, and principles of equity. The powerful dissents from Chief Justice Taney and Justice Daniel highlighted the significant constitutional tensions at play, arguing that the majority was engaging in judicial legislation and overstepping the bounds of federalism by intervening where Congress had not spoken.
