Mr. JOHNSON. Having had some professional connection with this subject, [beg leave to say a word or 2 upon the proposition immediately before us. 1I voted for the amendment suggested by the member from Missouri sitting next to me, [Mr. Hnsnnnsos, ] and for the same reason that I have that vote, I shall votefor the amendment which he now suggests. In the Wheeling bridge case, the bridge was erected by the authority of Virginia alone. It was a suspension bridge, and it was above the level of the water some 50 or 60 feet; but the court found, in fact, that some 6 or 7 boats were impeded by the bridge as it then stood. Iwas counsel for the bridge, and in sisted upon the right to trade across the river as well as the rig it to trade down the river. The two, therefore, if it was possible, should be made so to agree with each other that neither should injure the other. The court in the opinion, which Senators perhaps are not as familiar with as I am, and for that reason I refer to it, recognized the right of the bridge, provided a draw which would not materially affect the navigation of the river, was furnished, and they, therefore, in their decree in that case said that the bridge was to be abated, unless they should elevate it some 90 feet for a s ace of some 300 feet or unless they were able by removing the bridge entirely from the western side of the river to furnish a channel on that side which would enable the vessels going up and down the river, when they could not 0 under the bridge, to avail themselves of that channel. Congress, however afterward passed an act by which they declare that the bridge itself as it stood was a legal structure; and a majority of the Supreme Court held that that was within the power of Congress, and the bridge has, of course, ever since stood. They nit it in so man words upon the ground that Oiigress, under the power to regulate commerce, has a right to rescribe the manner in which bridgesacross tie navigable streams of the U.S. are to be built; what draws they are to have, or whether they are to be erected without draws; and they have a right to prescribe what height of chimney steamers should use. The effect of that decision and of a subsequent decision in the Albany bridge case, which was a brid e proposed to be run across and is now actually constructed across, the Hudson, at Albany, is this: that under the authority to regulate commerce Congress has no power to construct a bridge itself unless it owns the land on either side; that the authority to construct is vested in the States alone where the States have jurisdiction on both sides of the river over which the bridge is to be thrown; but that congress have the authority, under the commercial power, to prescribe what draws are necessary in order to avoid an impediment to navigation, or whether bri ges are to be built without draws and with an elevation which will remove all danger ofimpediment to the river. Now, my friendfrom Missouri will not get clear of one difficulty in which he and those who are interested in the navigation of the I. these bridges. The territory on each side of the river now belon s to some one of the States; the States not only have the authority but they have the exclusive authority to brid e; but that authority is to be exercised in subordination to what Congress may do under its exclusive authorityto regulate commerce. Ifthese bridges are built, and they may be built at once. one of 2 things will happen: either a multitude of lawsuits will be instituted in order to ascertain the fact whether the bridges create an improper impediment to the river, or Congress will be called upon to legislate hereafter. It seems to me, therefore, to be much better that we should in advance, by law, under our power to regulate commerce, provide what is to be the character of the bridge to be thrown over these streams, and that can only be safely done, I think, upon the judment of a board of engineers.