40 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
ring a man's relationship to the God who
made him and the home over
which he presides, has a political
significance.
You might as well talk of removing
politics from business as to
talk of asking the sun to stop shining,
as long as a human being votes
upon the election of a man who will vote
for a law there is always
politics, and there always should be
politics. Instead of there being
too much politics in this country there
is too little politics in this country.
It is not a question of the volume of
political activity so much as it
is a question of the quality of it. If
we could amend the Constitution
and disfranchise the man who did not
vote, strike dumb the man who
criticises another for doing what he
does, and split the tongue of the
man who agitates the people for the
purpose of selling that agitation
at so much per year, some problems would
now disappear as the mist
before the sun.
Wednesday morning the chairman Harry
Brent Mackoy
called the meeting to order and
introduced Professor Callahan
of West Virginia University:
THE PITTSBURGH-WHEELING RIVALRY FOR
COMMERCIAL
HEADSHIP ON THE OHIO.
BY JAMES MORTON CALLAHAN,
Professor of History and Politics, W.
Va. University.
The Wheeling Bridge Case in the Supreme
Court in 1849-52 and
1854-56 is as interesting through its
relations to the industrial history
of the period as it is from the
standpoint of constitutional questions
involved. Its study introduces us to the
earlier rivalries of coast cities
to secure the trade of the West, the
systems of internal improvements
planned to reach the Ohio, the
development of trade and navigation
and the extension of improvements and
regulations by Congress on
the Ohio, and the rivalries of
Pittsburgh and Wheeling to obtain the
hegemony by lines of trade and travel
converging and concentrating at
their gates.
Pennsylvania was early interested in
plans of internal improvements
to connect Philadelphia with Pittsburg
and the free navigation of the
Ohio. Occupying a central position,
resting eastward on the Atlantic,
north on the Lakes, and flanking on the
Ohio which connected her with
the Gulf and the vast region of West and
South, she had advantages
over other states for both foreign and
domestic commerce. These ad-
Ohio Valley Hist. Ass'n, Fifth
Annual Meeting. 41
vantages she cultivated from the
earliest period. In 1826, influenced
by the improved conditions of steam
navigation on the western waters,
by the effects of the Cumberland road in
diverting to Wheeling much
of the westward travel which had
formerly passed down the Monon-
gahela to the Ohio at Pittsburg, and by
the success of the Erie Canal
which also diverted travel and trade
from Pittsburg, she began a system
of canals to connect the Atlantic and
the Lakes which had begun to
bring to her western gates the commerce
from the Gulf and the Mississippi
and at great expense and sacrifice she
forced her way westward, from
the end of the horse railway at
Columbia, up the Juniata to Hollidays-
burg. Then, in 1835 by an inclined plane
portage railway for thirty-eight
miles across the Appalachians at the
base of which other enterprises
halted, she connected with the western
canal from Johnstown to Pitts-
burg. Over this route she transported
both passengers and goods-
carrying to eastern markets the rice,
cotton and sugar of the South,
the bacon and flour of the West, and the
furs and minerals of the
Northwest. In 1844 her connections with
the Ohio were improved by
a packet line established between
Pittsburg and Cincinnati. By 1850,
these improvements, together with her
interest, in a slack water naviga-
tion from Pittsburg to Brownsville and
up the Youghiogheny to West
Newton, and the importance of the ship-building
industry at Pittsburg,
made her watchful of the problems of
navigation on the Ohio. At the
solicitation of her legislature, and to
meet the needs of growing com-
merce, Congress beginning its policy of
improvement of Ohio navigation
in 1824, had appropriated large sums (by
1850) to remove obstructions
in the river.
In the meantime Wheeling, whose growing
importance had received
its first stimulus from the completion
of the Cumberland Road to the
Ohio in 1818, threatened to rival Pittsburg
in prosperity, wealth and
greatness, and to become the head of
navigation on the Ohio as well as
the western terminal of the first
railway to reach the western waters
from the East, and a center of other
converging lines from both East
and West. After persevering efforts of
nearly a quarter century she
scored her greatest victory by securing
the route of the Baltimore and
Ohio Railway whose charter of 1827 had
prohibited the termination of
the road at any point on the Ohio below
the Little Kanawha and whose
engineers on reconnaisance and surveys
in 1828 had considered several
routes terminating on the Ohio between
Parkersburg and Pittsburg.
Coincidently, after the unsuccessful
efforts of over half a century, she
secured the first bridge across the
Ohio-a structure which she regarded
as a logical link and incidental part of
the national road, and a fulfill-
ment of the provisions of the act of
1802 by which Ohio had been
admitted as a state, but which Pittsburg
regarded as an injury to
navigation-obstructing it much more
effectively than Congress had been
able to improve it by her recent
expenditures of public money.
42 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications.
The story of the efforts to obtain the
bridge is a long one, re-
flecting the industrial progress and
energy of the West and the evolu-
tion of national policies, and
punctuated with the spice and pepper of
rival memorials and resolutions. In 1816
during the construction of the
national road from Cumberland to the
Ohio, the legislatures of Virginia
and Ohio incorporated the Wheeling and
Belmont Bridge Company and
authorized it to erect a bridge which,
however, was to be treated as a
public nuisance liable to abatement if
not constructed so as to avoid
injury to navigation. Unable to raise
funds necessary for the work,
the Company in 1830 asked for a national
subscription to the bridge,
and its request received a favorable
committee report in the House1
Two years later citizens of Pennsylvania
submitted to the House a
memorial against the erection of the
bridge.2
Under the old charter of 1816 the
company in 1836 built a wooden
bridge from the west end of Zane's
Island to the Ohio shore, leaving
the stream east of the island free to
navigation. At the same time
petitions to Congress backed by
resolutions of the Ohio legislature,
urged the construction of the bridge
over both branches of the stream
in order to facilitate trade and
travel-and to prevent inconvenience and
delay in transporting the mails by
ferry, which was frequently obstructed
by ice and driftwood and especially so in
the great floods of 1832. A
congressional committee on roads and
canals made a favorable report
recommending the completion of the
Cumberland road by the erection
of the bridge3; but the
objection was made that the bridge might prove
an obstruction to the high chimneys of
the steamboats whose convenience
Congress did not think should yield to
the benefits of the bridge. In
1838, government engineers, after a
survey made under the direction of
the war department, presented to
Congress a plan for a suspension bridge
with a movable floor which they claimed
would offer no obstruction to
the highest steamboat smoke-stacks on
the highest floods,4 but the plan
was rejected. In 1840 the postmaster
general recommended the construc-
tion of the bridge in order to provide
for safe and prompt carriage of
the mails-which had been detained by ice
from seventeen to thirty-two
days each year5; but his
recommendation was buried in the archives.
Early in 1844, Pennsylvania, awakened by
the fear of plans to make
Wheeling the head of navigation, became
more active in her opposition
to what seemed an imminent danger to her
interests and the interests
of Pittsburg. By action of her
legislature she opposed the request of
Wheeling and the Ohio legislature for
national appropriations to con-
1House Rep. 339 and 349, 21-1, vol. III.
2 House exec. docs. 188, 22-1, vol. V.
3 Rep. Corn. 672, 24-1, vol. III. Rep.
Corn. 135, 24-2, vol. I.
4H.
Docs. 993, 25-1, June, 1838.
5 Cong. Globe, vol. 25, p. 973.
Also see House Does. 137, 29-1,
vol. IV.
Ohio Valley Hist. Ass'n, Fifth Annual
Meeting. 43
struct the bridge, and soon took new
steps to secure the construction
of a railroad from Harrisburg to
Pittsburg.6 The House committee on
roads and canals, deciding that the
bridge could be constructed without
obstructing navigation, reported a bill
making an appropriation and sub-
mitting a plan of Mr. Ellet for a simple
span across the river at an
elevation of 90 feet above low water,
but those who spoke for Pennsyl-
vania urged the specific objection that
90 feet would not admit the pass-
age of steamboats with tall chimneys,
and defeated the bill. In vain did
Mr. Stoenrod, the member from Wheeling,
propose hinged smokestacks
for the few tall chimneyed boats and
press every possible argument in
favor of the bridge.7
Opposition increased after 1845 with the increase
in the size of the Pittsburg steamboat
smokestacks-an improvement by
which speed power was increased through
increased consumption of fuel.
Baffled in her project to secure the
sanction and aid of Congress
for a bridge which Pennsylvania regarded
as a plan to divert commerce
from Pittsburg by making Wheeling the
head of navigation, Wheeling
next resorted to the legislature of
Virginia in which the remonstrating
voice of Pennsylvania could not be
heard. On March 19, 1847, the
Bridge Company obtained from the
legislature a charter reviving the
earlier one of 1816 and authorizing the
erection of a wire suspension
bridge-but also providing that the
structure might be treated as a com-
mon nuisance, subject to abatement, in
case it should obstruct the navi-
gation of the Ohio "in the usual
manner" by steamboats and other crafts
which were accustomed to navigate it.
Under this charter the company
took early steps to erect the bridge. At
the same time, and coincident
with the beginning of construction on
the Harrisburg and Pittsburg
railway at Harrisburg under its charter
granted by the Pennsylvania
legislature on April 13, 1846, she
managed to secure a promise of the
western terminal of the Baltimore and
Ohio railway--which after a
long halt at Cumberland received a new
charter from the Virginia legis-
ture8 and prepared to push
construction to the Ohio ahead of the Penn-
sylvania line.
The possible strategic and economic
effects of the Baltimore and
Ohio terminal at Wheeling increased the
activity of Pittsburg against the
bridge, which the engineer of the
Pennsylvania and Ohio railway openly
declared was designed as a connecting
link between the Baltimore and Ohio
and the state of Ohio -by which Wheeling
was also endeavoring to make
6 House Docs. 95, 27-3, vol. III; ibid
67, 28-1, vol. III. Sen. Doc. 84,
28-1, vol. I.
7House Rep. 79, 28-1, vol. I. Also see
42 Ohio Laws, 269; 29 Pa
Laws, 487 and 31 Pa. Laws, 591.
8 See U. S. Supreme Court Reports, 16
Howard, 314-354, A. J. Mar-
shall v. The B. and 0. Railroad.
44 Ohio Arch. and
Hist. Society Publications.
herself the terminal of the Ohio
railways which Pittsburg sought to
secure.9
A determined struggle followed. Before
its cables were thrown
across the river, the Bridge Company
received legal notice of the
institution of a suit and an application
for an injunction. The bill of
of Pennsylvania, filed before the United
States supreme court in July, 1849;
charged that the Bridge Company under
color of an act of the Virginia
legislature, but in direct violation of
its terms, was preparing to construct
a bridge at Wheeling which would
obstruct navigation on the Ohio and
thereby cut off and divert trade and
business from the public works of
Pennsylvania, and thus diminish tolls
and revenues and render its improve-
ments useless.10 In spite of
the order of Judge Grier (August 1, 1849),
the Bridge Company continued its work,
and in August 1849, Pennsylvania
filed a supplemental bill praying for
abatement of the iron cables which
were being stretched across the river.11
The Bridge Company continued
to work and completed the bridge. The
state treasurer of Pennsylvania
reported that it threatened to interfere
with the business and enterprise of
Pittsburg whose commercial prosperity
was so essential to the productive-
ness of the main line of the
Pennsylvania canal. In December 1849,
Pennsylvania filed another supplemental
bill praying abatement of the
bridge as a nuisance, representing that
the structure obstructed the
passage of steamboats and threatened to
injure and destroy the ship-
building business at Pittsburg. With no
appeal to force (such as had
recently occurred on the Ohio-Michigan
frontier), or blustering enactments
of state sovereignty, or threats of
secession, she sought a remedy by in-
junction against a local corporation. In
January 1850, the Pennsylvania
legislature unanimously passed a
resolution approving the prosecution
instituted by the attorney-general. At
the same time the Bridge Company
secured from the Virginia legislature
(on January 11, 1850) an amendatory
act declaring that the height of the
bridge (90 feet at eastern abutment,
931/2 feet at the highest point and 62
feet at the western abutment above
the low water level of the Ohio) was in
conformity with the intent and
meaning of the charter.
In the presentation of the case before
the supreme court, the at-
torney-general of Pennsylvania and Edwin
M. Stanton were attorneys
for Pennsylvania and Alex. H. H. Stuart
and Reverdy Johnson for the
Bridge Company.
The counsel for Pennsylvania urged that
the bridge had been erected
especially to the injury of Pittsburg
(the rival of Wheeling in com-
merce and manufactures), whose six
largest boats (those most affected
9Cong. Globe, vol. 25, p. 1049;
Pittsburg Gazette and Commercial Jour-
nal, June 30, 1849.
10 U. S. Supreme Court Reports, 9
Howard, 647.
11 Ib., 11 Howard, 528.
Ohio Valley Hist. Ass'n, Fifth Annual
Meeting. 45
by the bridge) carried between Pittsburg
and Cincinnati three-fourths
of the trade and travel transported by
the Pennsylvania canal. "To the
public works of Pennsylvania the injury
occasioned by this obstruction
is deep and lasting," said Stanton.
"The products of the South and West,
and of the Pacific coast, are brought in
steamboats along the Ohio to
the western end of her canals at
Pittsburg, thence to be transported
through them to Philadelphia, for an
eastern and foreign market. For-
eign merchandise and eastern
manufactures, received at Philadelphia,
are transported by the same channel to
Pittsburg, thence to be carried
south and west, to their destination, in
steamboats along the Ohio. If
these vessels and their commerce are
liable to be stopped within a short
distance as they approach the canals,
and subject to expense, delay and
danger, to reach them, and the same
consequence to ensue on their
voyage, departing, the value of these
works must be destroyed."12
The Bridge Company, through its counsel
admitting that Pennsyl-
vania had expended large amounts in
public improvements terminating
at Pittsburg and Beaver, over which
there was a large passenger and
freight traffic, alleged the exclusive
sovereignty of Virginia over the
Ohio, submitted the act of the Virginia
legislature authorizing the erec-
tion of the bridge, denied the corporate
capacity of Pennsylvania to in-
stitute the suit, and justified the
bridge as a connecting link of a great
public highway as important as the Ohio,
and as a necessity recognized
by reports of committees in Congress. It
cited the example set by
Pennsylvania in bridging the Allegheny,
in authorizing a bridge across
the Ohio below Pittsburg at thirteen
feet less elevation than the Wheel-
ing bridge, and in permitting the
bridging and damming of the Monon-
gahela by enterprising citizens of
Pittsburg under charters from the
state. It declared that the bridge was
not an appreciable inconvenience
to the average class of boats and would
not diminish the Pittsburg
trade, and suggested that the chimneys
of steamboats should be short-
ened or put on hinges for convenience in
lowering. It also contended
that the bridge was necessary for
transporting into the interior the
passengers and much of the freight which
would be diverted from the
streams by the greater speed and safety
of railroads which would soon
concentrate at Wheeling.
The court, accepting jurisdiction,
appointed Hon. R. H. Walworth,
a jurist of New York, as special
commissioner to take testimony and
report. The report indicated that the
bridge obstruction would divert
part of the total traffic (nearly fifty
millions annually) from lines of
transportation centering at Pittsburg to
the northern route through New
York or to a more southern route. Of the
nine regular packets which
passed Wheeling in 1847, five would have
been unable to pass under the
bridge (for periods differing in length)
without lowering or cutting off
12 U. S. Supreme Court, 13 Howard, 538.
46 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
their chimneys. The passage of three of
the Pittsburg-Cincinnati packets
had been actually stopped or obstructed.
One, on November 10, 1849,
was detained for hours by the necessity
of cutting off the chimneys.
Another, the Hibernia, on November 11,
1849, was detained thirty-two
hours and was obliged to hire another
boat to carry to Pittsburg the
passengers except those who preferred to
cross the mountains via Cum-
berland. Later she was twice compelled
to abandon a trip-once hiring
another boat, and once landing her
passengers who proceeded east to
Cumberland. Two accidents had also
occurred.
The report indicated a preponderance of
evidence against the safety
of lowering the chimneys, which at any
rate was regarded as a very slow
and expensive process. Although the
commissioner recognized that it
would be a great injury to commerce and
to the community to destroy
fair competition between river and
railroad transit by an unnecessary
obstruction to either, and recognized
the propriety of carrying railroads
across the large rivers if it could be
done without impairing navigation, he
concluded that the Wheeling bridge was
an obstruction to free naviga-
tion of the Ohio. Of the 230 boats on
the river below Wheeling, the
7 boats of the Pittsburg-Cincinnati
packet line were most obstructed
by the bridge. They conveyed about
one-half the goods (in value) and
three-fourths of the passengers between
the two cities. Since 1844, they
had transported nearly a million
passengers.
The Wheeling Bridge Company complained
that Mr. Walworth had
given the company no chance to present
its testimony.
The decision of the court was given at
the adjourned term in
May, 1852. The majority of the court
(six members) held that the
erection of the bridge, so far as it
interfered with the free and unob-
structed navigation of the Ohio, was
inconsistent with and in violation
of acts of Congress, and could not be
protected by the legislature of
Virginia because the Virginia statute
was in conflict with the laws of
Congress.
Justice McLean who delivered the opinion
of the court held that
since the Ohio was a navigable stream
subject to the commercial power
of Congress, Virginia had no
jurisdiction over the interstate commerce
upon it, and that the act of the
Virginia legislature authorizing the
structure of the bridge so as to
obstruct navigation could afford no
justification of the Bridge Company.
However numerous the railroads
and however large their traffic, he
expected the waterways to remain the
great arteries of commerce and favored
their protection as such instead
of their obstruction and abandonment.
The decree stated that unless
the navigation was relieved from
obstruction by February 1, 1853, the
bridge must be abated.
Chief Justice Taney dissented on the
ground that since Virginia
had exercised sovereignty over the Ohio
and Congress had acquiesced
in it, the court could not declare the
bridge an unlawful obstruction
Ohio Valley Hist. Ass'n, Fifth Annual
Meeting. 47
and the law of Virginia unconstitutional
and void. He preferred to leave
the regulation of bridges and steamboat
chimneys to the legislative de-
partment. Justice Daniels, also
dissenting, declared that Pennsylvania
could not be a party to the suit on the
ground stated in the bill (diminu-
ation of profits in canals and other
public improvements many miles
remote from the Wheeling bridge) and
that the court could take no
jurisdiction in such cases of imperfect
rights, or of merely moral or
incidental rights as distinguished from
legal or equitable. "And," said
he "if the mere rivalry of works of
internal improvement in other states,
by holding out the temptation of greater
dispatch, greater safety, or any
other inducement to preference for those
works over the Pennsylvania
canals, be a wrong and a ground for
jurisdiction here, the argument
and the rule sought to be deduced
therefrom should operate equally.
The state of Virginia which is
constructing a railroad from the seaboard
to the Ohio river at Point Pleasant,
much further down that river than
either Pittsburg or Wheeling, and at the
cost of the longest tunnel in
the world, piercing the base of the Blue
Ridge Mountains, should have
the right by original suit in this court
against the canal companies of
Pennsylvania or against that state
herself, to recover compensation for
diverting any portion of the commerce
which might seek the ocean by
this shortest transit to the mouths of
her canals on the Ohio, or to
the city of Pittsburg; and on the like
principle, the state of Pennsylvania
has a just cause of action against the
Baltimore and Ohio railroad for
intercepting at Wheeling the commerce
which might otherwise be con-
strained to seek the city of
Pittsburg."13
Justice Daniels, intoxicated with the
recent effects of the develop-
ment of railroads, directed considerable
attention to the reigning fallacy
which Pennsylvania urged upon the
court-that commerce could be
prosecuted with advantage to the western
country only by the channels
of rivers and through the agency of
steamboats whose privileges were
regarded as paramount. He urged that the
historical progress of means
of transportation exposed the folly and
injustice of all attempts to
restrict commerce to particular
localities or to particular interests.
Against the narrow policy of confining
commerce to watercourses whose
capacity was limited by the
contributions of the clouds, he urged the
superiority of railroads for speed,
safety, freedom from dependence on
wind or depth of water, and unifying
power in interfluvial regions.
Plans were proposed by the defendant's
counsel to remove the
obstructions to navigation at less
expense than the elevation or abate-
ment of the bridge, and the court (March
3, 1852) referred the plans
to J. McAlpine who made a report on May
8, 1852.
The majority of the court, looking only
to desired results and
not to methods, then agreed that the
former decree would permit the
13U. S. Supreme Court Reports, 13 Howard, 661.
48 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications.
Bridge Company to remove the obstruction
by a two hundred foot draw
in the bridge over the western branch of
the river. Justice McLean
then delivered the opinion of the court
in which he stated that the right
of navigating the Ohio or any other
river does not necessarily conflict
with the right of bridging it; but he
declared that these rights could
only be maintained when they were exercised
so as not to be incom-
patible with each other. If the bridge
had been constructed according
to the language of the charter, he said,
the suit could not have been
instituted.
Defeated before the courts, Wheeling
took prompt steps to save
the bridge by action of Congress. In her
efforts she received the co-
operation of one hundred and twenty-one
members of the Ohio legis-
lature who (in April, 1852) petitioned
Congress to protect the bridge by
maintaining it as a mail route-and also
by resolutions of the Virginia
and Indiana legislatures.14 She even had the sympathy of
thirty-six
members representing the minority of the
Pennsylvania legislature, who
presented a petition in favor of
protecting the bridge.15 On July 8, the
committee on roads made a favorable
report asking Congress to declare
both bridges post roads and military
roads and to regulate the height
and construction of chimneys of
steamboats navigating the Ohio.16 On
August 12, an adverse report was made on
a resolution of the Penn-
sylvania legislature. In the debates
which followed (from August 13
to August 18)" the advocates of the
bill included: (1) those who felt
that the entire proceeding against the
bridge originated in Pittsburg's
jealousy of Wheeling, (2) those who felt
that the recent decision of
the supreme court was a strike against
state sovereignty, and (3) those
who (favoring the encouragement of
better facilities for travel) as-
serted that within two years one could
travel from New York to Cin-
cinnati via Wheeling bridge as quickly
as one could now pass from Cin-
cinnati to Wheeling in either of the
seven tall chimneyed Pittsburg
packet boats, and with no danger of
stoppage of transportation alter-
nately by low water and frozen water.
Some of them who opposed the bill
regarded the proposed legis-
lation in favor of the bridge as giving
a preference to boats bound to
Wheeling over those bound to Pittsburg
and as a strike at the pros-
perity of Pittsburg. Others in
opposition directed attention to the fact
that bridges adapted to railroad
purposes could be erected near Wheeling
without obstruction to navigation and
that the Ohio Central railway and
the Baltimore and Ohio, which had
recently intended to connect at
14 H. Misc. Docs. 50, 32-1, vol. I. Sen.
Misc. Docs. 103, 32-1, vol. I.
H. Misc. Docs. 63, 32-1, vol. I.
15 Cong. Globe, 32-1, p. 602.
16 H. Reports 158, 32-1, vol. I.
17 Cong.
Globe, 32-1 vol. 25, pp. 967-968, 972, 974, 1037-1049, 1041, 1044,
1047, 1065 and 1068.
Ohio Valley Hist. Ass'n, Fifth Annual
Meeting. 49
Wheeling, had found a more convenient
point four miles south of
Bogg's Ferry where a bridge could be
constructed at sufficient height
to avoid the objection taken by the
supreme court to the bridge at
Wheeling.l8
The bill passed the Senate on August 28
by a vote of 33 to 10,
and the House on August 30 by a vote of
92 to 42.19 On August 31,
before the time designated for the
execution of the decree of May,
1852, it became an act of Congress
legalizing in their existing conditions
the bridges both of the west and the
east branch, abutting on Zane's
Island. It declared them to be post
roads for the passage of United
States mail, at the same time requiring
vessels navigating the river to
regulate their pipes and chimneys so as
not to interfere with the eleva-
tion and construction of the bridges.
The Bridge Company relied upon this act
as superseding the effect
and operation of the decree of May,
1852, but Pennsylvania insisted
that the act was unconstitutional. The
captain of one of the Pitts-
burg packets showed his displeasure by
unnecessarily going through the
form of lowering his chimneys and
passing under the bridge with all
the forms of detention and oppression.20
Meantime the rival railroads had been
pushing westward to con-
nect the rival cities of the Ohio with
rival cities of the East. The
original line of the Pennsylvania whose
construction began at Harris-
burg in July, 1847, was opened to the
junction with the Allegheny
Portage railway at Hollidaysburg at the
base of the mountains on Sep-
tember 16, 1850.21 The Baltimore and
Ohio, notwithstanding delays in-
cident to the difficulties experienced
in securing laborers was opened for
business from Cumberland to the foot of
the mountains at Piedmont
on July 5, 1851. The western division of
the Pennsylvania line from
the western end of the Portage railroad
at Johnstown to Pittsburg
was opened on September 22, 1852, and a
through train service via the
inclined planes of the Portage railway
was established on December
10, following.
By the beginning of 1853, Wheeling
seemed to have won new ad-
vantages over Pittsburg through the
strategy of prospective railway lines
and new steamer lines which induced the
belief that Pennsylvania with
her foot on the Ohio was but at the
threshold of the promised land.
The B. & 0. won the race to the Ohio
by a single continuous track
over which through train service was
established from Baltimore to
Wheeling in January, 1853. To connect
with it at Wheeling the Wheel-
ing and Kanawha packet line was
established by the Virginia legisla-
18Cong. Globe, 32-1, vol. 25, p. 975.
19
Ib. 32-1, vol. 24, pp. 2442 and 2479.
20Wheeling
Intelligencer, Feb. 23, 1853.
21 H. V. Poor, Manual of Railroads,
1881, p. 258.
Vol. XXII - 4.
50 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications.
ture and the Union line of steamboats
was established between Wheeling
and Louisville.22 At the same
time steps had been taken to construct
several other prospective railways which
would naturally converge at
Wheeling.23 These included
the Hempfield to connect with Philadelphia,
a line from Columbus, a line from
Marietta, and also a line from
Cleveland which was expected to become
an important point in case
the proposed treaty of reciprocity with
Canada should become a law.
While the James River and Kanawha canal
and the Covington and Ohio
railway still hesitated to find a way
westward across the mountains
farther south, and before the construction
of the Northwestern Virginia
railroad from Grafton to Parkersburg,
Wheeling especially expected
to divert the trade of southern Ohio,
Kentucky and Tennessee and to
center it at Wheeling. Wheeling was also
favored by cheaper steamer
rates to the west and by the dangers of
navigation between Wheeling
and Pittsburg at certain periods of the
year. Early in 1854, New York
merchants shipped western freight via
Baltimore and Wheeling. Oysters
too, because of the bad condition of the
Pennsylvania line of travel
were shipped via Wheeling to Cleveland
and Chicago.24
Pittsburg, however, undaunted by the
chagrin of defeat, and with
undiminished confidence in her ability
to maintain her hegemony of
the upper Ohio and the West, prepared to
marshal and drill her forces
for final victory by efforts to regain
ground lost and to forestall
the plans of her rival by new strategic
movements. She declared that
Wheeling was outside the travel line.
She stationed an agent at Graves
Creek below Wheeling to induce
eastward-bound boat passengers to
continue their journey to Pittsburg and
thence eastward via the Penn-
sylvania line of travel in order to
avoid the tunnels and zigzags, and
the various kinds of delay on the B.
& O.-to which the Wheeling
Intelligencer replied by uncomplimentary references to the slowness
of
travel over the inclined planes and flat
rails of the Pennsylvania Central
railway.25 Through her mayor
and her newspapers she warned travellers
against the danger of accidents on the
B. & O.-to which Wheeling
replied that the frightful accidents on
the Pennsylvania line hurled more
people into eternity each month than had
ever been injured on the
B. and 0. She also endeavored to
prejudice travelers against the Union
line of steamers, complaining of its
fares and food, and also of the
reckless racing encouraged by its
captains who had bantered the boats
of other lines for exhibitions of
speed.26 She was also accused of using
her influence to secure the location of
the route of the Pittsburg branch
of the Cleveland road, on the west shore
of the Ohio, from Wellsville to
22Wheeling Intelligencer, Feb. 12 and 26, 1853.
23 Ib. Sept 1852.
24 Wheeling Intelligencer, Jan. 20 and
March 2, 1854.
25 Ib. March 7, 1853.
26 Ib. April 1, 1853.
Ohio Valley Hist. Ass'n, Fifth Annual
Meeting. 51
Wheeling, causing Brooke and Hancock
Counties to threaten secession
from Virginia.
As a strategic movement against the
proposed Hempfield road, by
which Wheeling hoped to get not only
direct connection with Philadel-
phia, but also a connection with the
Marietta road, Pittsburg resuscitated
a movement in favor of the Steubenville
and Pittsburg railway and
revived the project of the Connelsville
route to Baltimore. She also
strained every nerve to open connections
with the New York and Erie
line via the Allegheny Valley.27
The proposed Steubenville and Pittsburg
railway, especially, was
strongly opposed by Wheeling by whom it
was regarded as a project to
cripple her by diverting her trade.
Largely through her influence,
Pittsburg's attempt to secure a charter
from the Virginia legislature for
the road for which she proposed a bonus
on every passenger, was
defeated in the lower house by a vote of
70 to 37, and later failed to
secure the approval of the house
committee.28 When the promoters of
the road tried the new plan of getting a
route by securing the land in
fee with the idea of rushing the road
through in order to get the next
Congress to declare it a post road, the
Wheeling Intelligencer declared
that Congress would not dare thus to
usurp the sovereignty of Vir-
ginia.29 An injunction
against the road was proposed, and in order to
prevent the construction of the railway
bridge at Steubenville a plan to
construct a road from the state line through Holliday's Cove and
Wellsburg was considered.30
From the consideration of plans to
prevent the construction of the
Steubenville bridge above her Wheeling
turned to grapple with a more
immediate danger of ruin which
threatened her by a proposed connec-
tion of the B. and 0. and the Central
Ohio railway at Benwood, four
miles below her. This she claimed was in
violation of the law of 1847
granting a charter to the B. and 0.;
and, to prevent it, she secured an
injunction from Judge George W. Thompson
of the Circuit Court-
causing the State Journal of
Columbus to place her in the list with
Erie, Pa. (which had recently attempted
to interrupt travel between
east and west), and to assert that the
Benwood track case was similar to
the Wheeling Bridge case An attempt was
made to secure combination
and cooperation of the railroads to
erect a union bridge in Wheeling to
replace the old structure.31
Meantime, transportation facilities
improved on the Pennsylvania
27 Wheeling
Intelligencer. Dec 15, 1852. and January 1853; also Feb-
ruary 8, 1853.
28 Ib. February 23, 1853 and February 1,
1854.
29 Ib.
May 13, 1853.
30 Ib. November 9, 1853 and April 3,
1854.
31 Wheeling Intelligencer, October 1854,
January 1855; March 17,
June 8 and June 19, 1855.
52 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications.
line after the mountains were conquered
by a grade for locomotives.
The mountain division of the road, and
with it the whole line, was opened
on February 15, 1854, and by its cheaper
rates soon overcame the ad-
vantages which New Orleans had held in
attracting the commerce of the
West.32 Pennsylvania promptly
passed a bill (1854) authorizing the sale
of her unproductive public works, and
abandoned her portage railway
across the mountains. Three years later
(1857), she sold to the Penn-
sylvania railway the main line of the
system of public works undertaken
in 1826, including the Philadelphia and
Columbia railway.33
Coincident with the determination of
Pennsylvania to dispose of
her unproductive public works, the old
Wheeling bridge over the main
branch of the stream was blown down by a
gale of wind (in May, 1854)
and was promptly removed to avoid
obstruction. Some regarded the
disaster as a just judgment for trespass
upon the rights of others by
Wheeling in order to make herself the
head of navigation. The Pitts-
burg Journal, edited by the
ex-mayor of the city, gloated over Wheeling's
misfortune.34 The Pittsburg and Cincinnati packet Pennsylvania,
in
derision, lowered her chimneys at the
place recently spanned by the
bridge. Her second offense, a few days
later, exasperated the indignant
crowd on shore and induced the boys to
resort to mob spirit and to
throw stones resulting in a hasty
departure of the vessel; but further
trouble was avoided by an apology from
the captain and the wise advice
of older heads.
Another and a final Wheeling Bridge case
before the Supreme Court
(arising in 1854 and decided in April,
1856,)35 resulted from the decision
of the company to rebuild the bridge.
When the company promptly
began the preparations for rebuilding,
Pennsylvania, stating that she
desired to secure a suspension of
expensive work until the force and
effect of the act of Congress could be
judicially determined, asked the
United States Supreme Court for an
injunction against the reconstruc-
tion of the bridge unless in conformity
with the requirements of the
previous decree in thecase. Without any
appearance or formal opposition
of the company, the injunction was
granted (June 25, 1854,) during
vacation of the court, by Justice Grier
whom the Wheeling Intelligencer
called the Pittsburg judge of the
Supreme Court. The Intelligencer
regarded the question as a grave one,
involving the sovereign authority
of Virginia and a direct law of
Congress, and illustrating the aggressions
of the Supreme Court, which it feared
were becoming daily more alarm-
ing. Charles Ellet, the engineer on whom
the injunction was served,
promptly announced that he expected to
have the bridge open for traffic
in two weeks, and the bridge company
asked Congress to investigate
32 Star of the
Kanawha Valley, January 9, 1856.
33 H. V. Poor, Manual of Railways, 1881,
p. 258.
34 Wheeling
Intelligencer May 20 and 22, 1854.
35 U. S. Supreme Courts, 18 Howard,
421-459.
Ohio Valley Hist. Ass'n, Fifth Annual
Meeting. 53
charges against Judge Grier to the
effect that he had invited bribery.36
The new suspension bridge was opened as
a temporary structure on
July 26 at an expense of only $8,000.
The injunction having been disregarded,
Pennsylvania asked for
attachment and sequestration of the
property of the company for con-
tempt resulting from disobedience of the
injunction of Justice Grier.
At the same time, the company asked the
court to dissolve the injunction.
Pennsylvania insisted that the act of
Congress was unconstitutional and
void because it annulled the judgment of
the court already rendered and
because it was inconsistent with the
clause in Article I, Section 9, of the
Constitution against preference to the
ports of one state over those of
another.
Justice Nelson, in delivering the
decision of the court on the latter
point, said: "It is urged that the
interruption of the navigation of the
steamboats engaged in commerce and
conveyance of passengers upon the
Ohio river at Wheeling from the erection
of the bridge, and the delay
and expense arising therefrom, virtually
operate to give a preference to
this port over that of Pittsburg; that
the vessels to and from Pittsburg
navigating the Ohio and Mississippi
rivers are not only subjected to
this delay and expense in the course of
the voyage, but that the obstruc-
tion will necessarily have the effect to
stop the trade and business at
Wheeling, or divert the same in some
other direction or channel of
commerce. Conceding all this to be true,
a majority of the court are
of the opinion that the act of Congress
is not inconsistent with the
clause in the constitution referred
to--in other words, that it is not
giving a preference to the ports of one
state over those of another,
within the true meaning of that
provision. There are many acts of
Congress passed in the exercise of this
power to regulate commerce,
providing for a special advantage to the
port or ports of one state
(and which very advantage may
incidentally operate to the prejudice of
the ports in a neighboring state) which
have never been supposed to
conflict with this limitation upon its
power. The improvement of rivers
and harbors, the erection of
light-houses, and other facilities of com-
merce, may be referred to as
examples."37
The court decided that the decree for
alteration or abatement of
the bridge could not be carried into
execution since the act of Congress
regulating the navigation of the river
was consistent with the existence
and continuance of the bridge-but that
the decrees directing the costs
to be paid by the bridge company must be
executed. The majority of
the court (six members), on the grounds
that the act of Congress
afforded full authority to reconstruct the bridge, directed that the
motion for attachments against the
president of the bridge company and
others for disobedience and contempt
should be denied and the injunc-
36
Wheeling Intelligencer July 1 and July 17, 1854.
37 U. S. Supreme Court Reports, 18
Howard, 433.
54 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
tion dissolved; but Nelson agreed with
Wayne, Grier and Curtis in the
opinion that an attachment should issue,
since there was no power in
Congress to interfere with the judgment
of the court under pretense
of power to legalize the structure or by
making it a post road.
Justice McLean dissented, feeling that
the principle involved was
of the deepest interest to the growing
commerce of the West, which
might be obstructed by bridges across
the rivers. He opposed the idea
that making the bridge a post road
(under the purpose of the act of
July 7, 1838,) could exempt it from the
consequences of being a nuisance.
He regarded the act of Congress as unconstitutional
and void; and,
although he admitted the act might
excuse previous contempt, he
declared that it could afford no excuse
for further refusal to perform
the decree.
A sequel to the preceding case arose in
the same term of court
(December, 1855,) on motion of the
counsel for the bridge company for
leave to file a bill of review of the
court's order of the December term
of 1851, in regard to the costs. The
court had already determined that
the decree rendered for costs against
the bridge company was un-
affected by the act of Congress of
August 1, 1852; but the court
declining to open the question for
examination declared "there must be
an end of all litigation."38.
The later history bearing upon the
subject here treated-the later
regulation of the construction of
bridges across the Ohio under act of
Congress, the later opposition which
found expression against the con-
struction of bridges such as the
railroad bridges of Parkersburg and
between Benwood and Bellaire39 (which
were completed in 1871), the
decline of old local prejudices and
jealousies, and the rise of new problems
of transportation resulting from the
extension of railways, cannot be
considered within the scope and limits
of this monograph.
Professor Callahan was followed by
Editor Wiley of Eliza-
beth, Pa.
SHIP AND BRIG BUILDING ON THE OHIO
AND ITS TRIBUTARIES.
BY RICHARD T. WILEY.
The coming of the steamboat on the
western rivers was soon
followed by the end of a movement in the
commerce of the region,
which seems strange as we compare it
with present-day conditions and
activities. To think of Pittsburgh and
the river towns of the Ohio basin
38 U. S. Supreme Court Reports, 18
Howard, 460-463.
39 Wheeling Intelligencer, April 13 and
April 20, 1869.
40 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
ring a man's relationship to the God who
made him and the home over
which he presides, has a political
significance.
You might as well talk of removing
politics from business as to
talk of asking the sun to stop shining,
as long as a human being votes
upon the election of a man who will vote
for a law there is always
politics, and there always should be
politics. Instead of there being
too much politics in this country there
is too little politics in this country.
It is not a question of the volume of
political activity so much as it
is a question of the quality of it. If
we could amend the Constitution
and disfranchise the man who did not
vote, strike dumb the man who
criticises another for doing what he
does, and split the tongue of the
man who agitates the people for the
purpose of selling that agitation
at so much per year, some problems would
now disappear as the mist
before the sun.
Wednesday morning the chairman Harry
Brent Mackoy
called the meeting to order and
introduced Professor Callahan
of West Virginia University:
THE PITTSBURGH-WHEELING RIVALRY FOR
COMMERCIAL
HEADSHIP ON THE OHIO.
BY JAMES MORTON CALLAHAN,
Professor of History and Politics, W.
Va. University.
The Wheeling Bridge Case in the Supreme
Court in 1849-52 and
1854-56 is as interesting through its
relations to the industrial history
of the period as it is from the
standpoint of constitutional questions
involved. Its study introduces us to the
earlier rivalries of coast cities
to secure the trade of the West, the
systems of internal improvements
planned to reach the Ohio, the
development of trade and navigation
and the extension of improvements and
regulations by Congress on
the Ohio, and the rivalries of
Pittsburgh and Wheeling to obtain the
hegemony by lines of trade and travel
converging and concentrating at
their gates.
Pennsylvania was early interested in
plans of internal improvements
to connect Philadelphia with Pittsburg
and the free navigation of the
Ohio. Occupying a central position,
resting eastward on the Atlantic,
north on the Lakes, and flanking on the
Ohio which connected her with
the Gulf and the vast region of West and
South, she had advantages
over other states for both foreign and
domestic commerce. These ad-