Mahlon Pitney

“ Congress thereby declared that whenever the Secretary of War should find any bridge theretofore or thereafter constructed over any of the navigable waterways of the United States to be an unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of such waters on account of insufficient height, width of span, or otherwise, it should be the duty of the Secretary, after hearing the parties concerned, to take action looking to the removal or alteration of the bridge, so as to render navigation through or under it reasonably free, easy, and unobstructed. ”

“ Concisely stated, the position of appellant is that the Ohio Falls bridge was constructed under an irrevocable franchise, and became upon its completion a lawful structure and the private property of appellant; that Congress had no power to require its removal except in the exercise of the Federal authority to regulate commerce, and subject to the provision of the 5th Amendment that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation ”

“ But when private rights of an indefeasible nature are sought to be derived from regulatory provisions established in the exercise of this power, the case is peculiarly one for the application of the universal rule that grants of special franchises and privileges are to be strictly construed in favor of the public right, and nothing is to be taken as granted concerning which any reasonable doubt may be raised. ”

“ Contemporaneously with the second of these, an act was passed (chap. 39, 13 Stat. at L. 431) declaring a bridge then under construction across the Ohio between Cincinnati and Covington to be a lawful structure. In neither of these was there any express reservation of future control. In succeeding years [1] numerous bridge acts were passed containing in one form or another a reservation of the power to alter or amend the act or to withdraw the assent given. ”

“ Congress is not prevented by the Constitution from passing laws that impair the obligation of contracts, and in its enactments the presence or absence of such a reservation has not the same peculiar significance that it has in state legislation. ”

“ There remains only the contention that the Act of 1899, being a general act, does not by fair construction operate to repeal or modify the special rights conferred upon appellant by the Acts of 1862 and 1865. ”

“ February 27, 1867 (chap. 98, 14 Stat. at L. 412) ; February 21, 1868 (chap. 10, 15 Stat. at L. 37) ; July 6, 1868 (chap. 134, 15 Stat. at L. 82) ; July 20, 1868 (chap. 179, 15 Stat. at L. 121) ; February 19, 1868 (chap. 37, 15 Stat. at L. 272) ; March 3, 1869 (chap. 139, 15 Stat. at L. 336) ; Joint Resolution of March 3, 1869 (15 Stat. at L. 347) .
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105) . ”