| OCR Text |
Show 11 legislation conflicted with legislation by Congress regulating commerce among the states carried on upon the River.26 In 1865, the Court further expounded the navigation scope of that power over commerce in Gilman v. Philadelphia, saying:2T Commerce includes navigation. The power to regu- late commerce comprehends the control for that pur- pose, and to the extent necessary, of all the navigable waters of the United States which are accessible from a State other than those in which they lie. For this pur- pose they are the public property of the nation, and sub- ject to all the requisite legislation by Congress. This necessarily includes the power to keep them open and free from any obstruction to their navigation, inter- posed by the States or otherwise; to remove such ob- structions when they exist; and to provide, by such sanctions as they may deem proper, against the oc- currence of the evil and for the punishment of offenders. For these purposes, Congress possesses all the powers which existed in the States before the adoption of the national Constitution, and which have always existed in the Parliament in England. Such a view required a conclusion that federal power over navigable waters may not be limited even by a compact between states made prior to their adoption of the Federal Constitution, as the Court held a few years later in South Carolina v. Georgia.28 The exercise of federal commerce authority to pro- tect navigation, including the prevention of interference with and obstructions to navigation-even those created under prior state or federal sanction-was repeatedly sustained.29 Corre- * Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 13 How. 518, 565-566 (U. S. 1851). "3 Wall. 713, 724-725 (U. S. 1865). M93U. S. 4, 8 (1876). 29 See, e. g., Bridge Co. v. United States, 105 U. S. 470 (1881). United States v. Rio Qrande Irrigation Co., 174 U. S. 690 (1899); United States v. Bellingham Bay Boom Co., 176 U. S. 211 (1900) ; Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364 (1907) ; Monongahela Bridge Co. v. United States, 216 U. S. 177 (1910) ; Hannibal Bridge Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 194 (1911) |
