Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/204

190 WSDKRkh BSPOBTBB. ���Canada SovTHEBN Bt. Co. r. Intebnatiokal Bbidoe Oo. and �another. �{Bietriet Court, E. JD. New 7<rrk. 1881.) �1. ThB iHTBBNATIOIIAIi BbIDOB ComPAHY— AcT OF 1870. �The act of congress pasaed in June, 1S70, providing, among other things, that "all railway companies desiring to use the said bridge ghall have and be entitled to equal rights and privileges in the passage of the same, and in the use of the machinery and flxtures thereof, and of all the approaches thereto» under and upon such terms and conditions as sball be prescribed by the district court of the United States," etc., does not confer upon such court Jurisdiction over a controversy relating solely to the compensation which is due the corpo- ration for the use of the bridge. �2. POWBB TO HEauIiATB COUMBROB. �Where a corporation incorporated by the legislatures of Canada and New York for the purpose ot building a bridge, oonstructs it. In part, over public navigable waters of the United Btates, it seems that congress, under the power conferred upon it by the constitution to regulate commerce, lias the right to prescribe what compensation it shall charge for its use. �3. Congress — DBLaaATioif of Adthoeitt — Jodioiai, Fdiictions. �As the exercise of judicial functions alone is involved in determlning the amount of such compensation, congress can confer the authority necessary for this purpose upon a federal court. �4. Chabteb Rights— LEGisiiATiVB Intbbfbrencb. �As the right to charge such tolls as the judgment of its offlcers might war- rant constituted the essential value of such company's franchise, it will not be inferred that congress intended to interfere theiewith, if the language of the BCt is consistent with a less violent purpose. �McMillan e Gluck, attomeys for petitioner, with Geo. F. Comstock, Adam Crooks, Q. C, Graver Cleveland, and Daniel H. McMillan, of counsel for petitioner. �Spragiie, Milhum de Spragtie, attomeys for respondents, with E. C. Spragm, John Bell, Q. C, and John G. Milburn, counsel for respond- ents. �Wallaoe, D. J. The petitioner, the Canada Southern Eailway Company, has applied to this court to determine the terms and con- ditions upon which it may be permitted to use the' bridge of the respondent, the International Bridge Company, and in this behalf to adjudge what compensation the respondent may exact for such use. The International Bridge Company is a corporation organized pursu- ant to concurrent legislation on the part of the State of New York and of Canada, authorizing a New York corporation and a Canadian corporation to consolidate and enjoy the franchises conferred by the legislation of the respective sovereignties. Under these acts the cor«  poration was authorized to build and maintain a bridge across the ��� �