12 w .· mnnmr anronrmn.
and New,.York, as settled by agreement in 1833, and confirmed by act
of congress, June 28, 1834. f
The information furthéfstates that this ownership on the part of the
state has been practically exercised by it for more than a century past,
by regulating theenjoyment and disposition of the lands under the nav-
igable waters within its limits, passing laws for the preservation and
protection ofthe oyster fisheries therein, and authorizing the construction
of wharves, with solid filling, to certain prescribed limits beyond low-
water mark, and that for these privileges the grantees are required to
pay and have paid a certain compensation to the state. It is contended
by the informant that the act of congress cannot be construed as intend-
ing to give any authority to take. any portion of said lands without com-
pensation; that said act mustbe construed as a mere license or permis-
sion to erect the proposed bridge, so far as congress, the conservator of
navigatiomyis concerned,`leaving thecompanies to obtain from the state t
theusual authority to build the bridge on the territory and-lands of
_ the state; butthat if the act should be construed as giving authority to
· erect the bridge without the consent of the state, and without compen-
sation for taking its lands therefor, then it is violative of the constitu-
tion of the,Uuited States, not only for authorizing the lands of the state
to be taken without compensation,·but for enlarging the powers of a
corporation- created by the state itself, (if the bridge should be built by
the ,Baltimore,& New York Railroad Company,) and authorizing it to do
what, byits own- charter and other laws of the state, it is prohibited
from doing, ‘ ¤ , , ~
The information further contends that the other corporation defend-
ant, the Staten Island Rapid Transit Company, is not a corporation of
New Jersey, and has no authority from the state to exercise any corporate
franchises therein, and acannot lawfully do so, except by the comity of
the state, which has not been accorded to it; that, instead of any such
comity having been exercised, the said company is expressly prohibited
f from exercising any such powers or franchises as that of building said
t bridge by an act of the legislature of New Jersey, passed April 6, 1886,
which prohibits any person or corporation from erecting any bridge, via-
duct, or fixed structure over ortin any part of the navigable waters where
the tide ebbs and flows, and separating-said state from other states, with-
· out permission of the legislature of New Jersey Hrst given by statute for
that purpose, and that no such permission has ever been asked or given.
The answer of the defendants does not advance anyrmaterial new facts,
except to state that the Baltimore & New York Railroad Company has
nothing to do with the proposed building of the bridge, and that the Staten
Island Rapid Transit Railroad company proposes to build it as a connect-
ing link in a line of railroad extending from the bay of New York across
the soil of the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and other
states, as an instrument of commerce among the states, and claims the
right to do so under the act of congress before recited.
The first question to be examined is the true construction of the act
of congress on which the case arises,--the informant contending that it