Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/205

 CANADA SOUTHEBN BT. CO. V. INTERNATIONAL BBIDGB CO. 191 �Niagara river for the passage of persons on foot and in earriages, and for the passage of railway trains, and to fis and demand tolls for the use of the bridge and its approaches. No limitation upon the rate of tolls to be eharged for the use of the bridge by railway trains is im- posed, but the directors are empowered ex.pi;eBBly or by implication to charge such tolls as they may, deem expedient. The bridge thus authorized was to be, and 9.S built is, partly within the territorial limits of New York and of Canada, and over navigable waters of the United States. �In June, 1870, the eongress of the United States passed an act authorizing the International Bridge Company to construct and mai»»- tain the bridge, subject, however, to sevefal conditions; of which Bome related to the location and place of the structu:^e, and the supervision of the work by the secretary of war. It was further pro- vided by that act as followB : �<<A11 railway companies desiring- to use the said bridge shall have and be eijititled to equal rights and privileges in the passage pi the same, and in the use of the machinery and fixtures thereof, and of all the approaches thereto, under and upon such terms and conditions as shall be prescribed by the dis- trict court of the United States for the northern district of New York, upon hearing the allegations aud proofs uf the parties, in case they shall not agree." �The bridge was completed in the fall of 1873, and since that time has been used by several railway companies for the passage of their trains. Since Octpber 31, 1877, ihe bridge company and the Can- ada Southern Eailway Company have been unable to agree upon the tolls which should be paid by the latter for the use of the bridge, and, relying upon the provisions of the act of eongress aforesaid, the latter company has applied to this court to prescribe the terms and condi- tions upon which it may be entitled to use the bridge. The applica- tion of the petitioner is met by the respondent, at the threshold of the controversy, by the objection that the act of eongress does not confer power upon this court to prescribe the compensation which the bridge company may charge for-the use of its property ; and that, if such power is intended to be conferred, the act is unconstitutional. �It is insisted that such a power could not have been contemplated, because the right to establish tolls is conferred upon the bridge com- pany by the charters concurrently granted by Canada and the state of New York; that it would be inconsistent with considerations of courtesy towards these two sovereignties, and of respect for the vested rights of the oorporators in their franchises, to confer such a power ; and that if such a power were conferred, it would partake of a ��� �