The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

1901.) BRIDGE CASE OF UNUSUAL INTEREST. RAILROAD COMPANY VIRTUALLY HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR NOT PROPERLY OBSERVING AN ORDER OF COURT TO OPERATE A DRAW-BRIDGE AT ASHTABULA—PROCEEDINGS IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS. One of the biggest men which this country has produced—a man with a head full of hard sense—was Henry W. Sage. Sage was in the vessel business in New York and had considerable coastwise interests. Rail- roading was in its young and vigorous days and its chief exponent was Com. Vanderbilt, capable and choleric. In course of time Vanderbilt built a bridge across the river with a draw in it, but he had a profound con- tempt for water transportation, and the manner in which he handled that draw was not all that could be desired. He seemed to think that vessels had no rights which railways were bound to respect. Occasionally he gave Sage trouble. One day Sage sent his son to Vanderbilt’s office to tell him that he desired the drawbridge swung at a certain hour, as he had several vessels waiting to go outside. The boy after cooling his heels in Vanderbilt’s ante-room for two hours, returned and said that the com- modore would not see him. Sage picked up his hat and lost no time in getting to Vanderbilt’s office. He brushed back the clerks and entered Vanderbilt’s private room. “Mr. Vanderbilt,” he blurted, “I’m Henry W. Sage, and I want. to know when you're going to swing that drawbridge?”’ Vanderbilt looked up from his desk and slowly surveyed his caller, “So you’re Henry W. Sage, are you?” he replied ; “well, ’'m going to swing that drawbridge when I get good and ready.” The color left Sage’s face. He stared at the commodore mute and impotent with rage. Then he grabbed his hat, turned and left the office, but found his tongue as he reached the door. “You'll swing that bridge,” he said, “by 2 o'clock this afternoon or there won't be any bridge to swing.’ Sage engaged at once two of the most powerful ocean-going tugs in New York harbor and instructed them to proceed to the bridge. He told them that they were to simply obey his orders and he would shoulder all responsibility. Then he waited with his fleet of schooners patiently until 2 o’clock for the bridge to swing. It didn’t swing, nor were there any manifestations that it was going to swing. “Batter down the center pier,’ came the order. The first tug went at it full tilt and shivered the draw; the second carried it into the stream. Sage’s shooners proceeded out to sea. The case, of course, went to the courts. “T don’t know anything about law,” said the old man, “but its just horse sense that no one has the right to block a navigable stream. It prohibits trade and prevents the growth of the country. If there isn’t a law on the subject there ought to be.”’ The supreme court held that the old man’s views were sound. He triumphed over the railway and the damage done to the bridge was com- promised. But the draw swung thereafter with great promptitude. Another case, in which Russell C. Humphrey of Ashtabula and the state of Ohio are the plaintiffs and the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. is the defendant, has been more amicably settled by the courts. Precisely the same principle is involved as that in which Sage took such heroic measures. Russell C. Humphrey owns property along the river in Ashtabula which, with the growth of the shipping interest at that point, has become of value for docking purposes. It was shut off from the harbor by a railway bridge which was of a stationary character. Mr. Humphrey brought proceedings against the company to compel it to remove the bridge and replace it with one containing a draw. Mr. Burton, now chairman of the committee on rivers and harbors, fought the case for Mr. Humphrey through the courts of the state and through the supreme court of the United States. Both state and federal courts as a rule are jealous of the navigable rights of a nation, and the courts after satisfying themselves that the stream in question was a navigable one, directed that the railway company maintain a suitable drawbridge over it. The railroad company found a bridge that had been constructed for other parties and for a different place, and bought it. The bridge was 366 ft. long, and by putting the pier on one side of the channel it left an arm to be operated over the channel of the river substantially 180 ft. long— an expensive structure altogether out of proportion to the necessities of the case. After the bridge was built the company exercised its own pleas- ure in its operation. The draw was swung with so much leisure that for the practical development of latter day commerce the bridge might as well have been a stationary one. The plaintiff again had to resort to the courts for relief. Mr. Burton had become so busy with legislative matters as to preclude the possibility of any further service in a private capacity. The case was therefore given to Mr. Harvey D. Goulder of Cleveland. Mr. Goulder, after reviewing the successive stages of the case through the supreme courts of the state and nation, came to the conclusion that the railroad company in its lame observance of the decree that a suitable drawbridge should be maintained across the river, was directly guilty of contempt of court, Proceedings in contempt were therefore brought against the rail- road company on behalf of the state of Ohio and Mr. Humphrey in the state circuit court. ; Judge Caldwell has just handed down an opinion which virtually sustains the proceedings in contempt. The railroad company held that as it had submitted plans for the bridge to the secretary of war and the Ohio board of public works, which had been approved, it did not consider that the court had jurisdiction in the premises. In reply to this contention the court maintained that the mode and Heoaed of opening and closing the bridge was never exhibited to these authorities. The cailroad company claimed that it had furnished a bridge tat, when swung, would clear the channel of the stream and that ae a provided it with a draw which could be opened within a reasonab gee The evidence, however, showed that one man was kept upon the bri ee as a draw tender and watchman and that when a vessel whistled for the bridge he went to the yards of the company where the secon mee working and gathered a sufficient force to swing the draw. This me uP caused unreasonable delay and sometimes vessels tired of waiting uae some other dock. The court, while not presuming to dictate we 9 e power the bridge should be swung, declared it to be incontestible tha MARINE REVIEW. .... _MARINE REVIEW, i bridges of that size and ahewemia were operated nowadays by steam power or electricity and that it was conclusive that the company had not em- ployed means to open it with reasonable dispatch. The only excuse the company made for not using steam or other artificial power or employing sufficient men to swing the bridge readily, was that the quantity of nayigation did not warrant it. Upon this propo- sition the court dealt with considerable vigor. It declared that if the railroad should continue to. operate the bridge as it had been doing, un- doubtedly the demand for the bridge to swing would never be increased, for the delay is such that it is of no practical use to those desiring to use the waters above the bridge. “The bridge, as it has been operated,” says the court, “practically prohibits business being introduced above the bridge; and it seems to us unreasonable and ‘of no weight whatever for the railroad to say that when the relator and others establish business on the waters above the bridge that call for a service that will be of use to them, then they will give them that service, but, that until they have thus established business the present service is all that is necessary; whereas it is clear that with the present service there never can be a business of any consequence established above the bridge and hence the relator and others could never make any use of their property for which it is best adapted.” The railway company also claimed that the proceeding was not a proper one, that if the parties living south of the bridge had been injured by the way in which the bridge was operated their proper action was for damages. To this the court replied that it is not the individual but the state which is interested, for the subject is one vitally pertaining to the interests of the state. The court said that the railway company might have built a bridge sufficient for the place which could have been operated by two or three men, but that as it has seen fit to build thereon a much larger bridge it cannot complain if the court requires it to use a force adequate to operate it. ~The court held that it was inclined to give the company credit for acting. in good faith, and not designedly refusing to carry out the decree of the court; but that nevertheless it has not satisfied the law. The court held that if the company had declined to comply at all it should be punished, but that as it had complied in part it should be given a little further time and a more definite understanding of the de- cree. The court therefore instructed the railway company to so provide its bridge with power that. it would be opened within seven minutes after being signaled to do so bya boat. It was given until May 13 to do so. The railroad is therefore found to be substantially in contempt but is given opportunity to purge itself. FAVORS THE 1,000-TON BARGE CANAL A dispatch from Syracuse, N. Y., announces that the New York city advocates of the 1,000-ton barge canal carried the adjourned session of the state commerce convention in favor of their proposition over the objections of the Buffalo delegation, who favored a smaller canal, pro- viding for a craft of 450 tons. The following resolutions were adopted: “The canal system of the state was the greatest factor in the growth of the state of New York. During its seventy-five years of operation it has been the means, largely, of building up throughout this state the greatest line of prosperous cities and villages that can be found anywhere on this continent. It made New York city one of the greatest of sea ports; it made Buffalo one of the greatest of lake ports. By this growth of population throughout the state it has brought great benefits to all classes of our citizens; to the laboring men, to the farmers and to the merchants in all lines’ of commercial industry. In addition to its direct influence upon the prosperity of the state it has been such a factor in con- trolling rates of freight that nowhere on this continent are rates of trans- portation by railroad and by water so moderate as in this state. The con- dition of the canal system of this state is most critical. The present and future commercial prosperity of the state is in great danger. Adequate improvements of the canal must be undertaken. Largely increased facil- ities for water transportation must be secured if the state’s commercial supremacy is to be maintained. “Resolved; That itis the sense of this committee that the commercial ~ interests of the state will be best fostered, promoted and protected by the construction of the 1,000-ton barge canal; that a committee of nine, to- gether with the president and secretary, be appointed by the president of this convention, which committee shall prepare and present to the legis- lature and governor the further reasons for its conclusions.” President Kernan appointed the following committee, which, it is expected, will go to Albany this week: George Clinton of Buffalo, Frank Brainard of New York, Aaron Vanderbilt of New York, Hon. John Loughlin of Buffalo, Willis, H. Tennany of Mayville, Samuel H. Beach of Home, Hon. John ’D. Kernan of Utica, Frank S. Gardner of New York. IRON AND STEEL EXPORTS. Reports from the bureau of statistics, treasury department, regarding exports of iron and steel show that the total for eight months ending with February, 1901, is $6,500,000 in excess of the unparalleled figure of last year, and nearly three times the total for the eight months ending with February, 1891—an increase of 10 per cent. in a single year and 333 per cent. in the decade. In the eight months ending with February, 1891, iron and steel formed but 3 per cent. of the total domestic exports from the United States; in the eight months just ended they form 8 per cent., being $81,553,132, against $75,053,768 in the corresponding months of the fiscal year 1900, and $18,823,384 in the same months of 1891. In 1891 no exports of electrical machinery were recorded, but by 1900 the figures for eight months’ transactions had reached about $2, 500,000, and for the eight months ending with February this year amounted. to $3,777,673, an in- crease of $1,345,000 in'a single year. Exports of steel rails increased from $395,484 in the ‘eight months ending with February, 1891, to $4,818,226 in the corresponding months of the fiscal year 1900, and $6, 889,079 in the same months of the fiscal year 1901. The Nickel Plate road’ will sell excursion tickets to students holding certificates from school principal, at one and one-third fare for the round trip, account the Easter vacation. Tickets available day before school closes, the closing day and day immediately after, the return limit to cover period of vacation. Write, wire, phone, or call on nearest agent, C. A. Asterlin: 1. Pp. AL Be Wayne, Ind:, or FE. A. Akers, CP & eA: Cleveland, O. 82April 4.