Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/350

 338 FEDERAL REPORTER.. �able indication as to what is iiecessary in the construction of a bridge over this and other navigable waters of no more importance than this, and navigated with vessels of less tonnage, to prevent the navigation from being injuriously affected thereby, and weighing the testimony in the case, I think this bridge is such an obstruction to the navigation of the Wallamet as prevents its being a free and common high- ■way to the citizens of the United States, and is therefore a nuisance, and unlawful. Indeed, I have no doubt of it. Forty-two persons, mostly navigators, including, I think, nearly ail the pilots on the Columbia and Wallamet rivers, testify unqualifiedly that the draw is toc narrow, and ought to be 200 feet instead of 100; and that in the winter sea- son especially, the time when vessels usually load with grain for foreign ports, owing to the strong currents and high , winds, it will be very unsafe to go through the draw with a good-sized river steam-boat, let alone a tug and sail vessel occupying a space from 70 to 80 feet. �The United States engineer in charge of the river and har- bor improvements in this district, Col. George L. Gillespie, U. S. A., reports to the chief of engineers at Washington, on December 29, 1880, at length uponthe subject of this bridge, and concludes that it should have been located at Columbia Street ; but if allowed to be constructed at Morrison, the draw should be enlarged to not less than 200 feet, and that a bridge there with a draw of only 100 feet will resuit in frequent loss to shipping, and may prevent sea-going vessels from going above the bridge altogether. In reply to this mass of testi- mony the defendant has introdnced six affidavits, one of them being from the contracter, and another from the president of the Company ; only two of them being from river pilots. The principal point made in them is that the bridge will be more dangerous to navigation if left in its present condition than if completed. But a sufficient answer to this is that a court may require by the injunction that the defendant undo what he has done amiss, as well as to refrain from so doing. C. S. U. Co. V. F. e G. H. W. Co. 1 Sawy. 482. Inmy judg- ment the preliminary injvmction should be allowed. The ��� �