s prior to the passage of the act. As a result of
such examination and much discussion, Congress granted permission to
this company to construct a bridge having a single span and suspended
from towers on each side of the river, and in the act especially
prohibited the placing of any piers in the river, either of a temporary
or of a permanent character, in connection with said bridge. This plan
to bridge the river without piers was at that time considered feasible
by the engineers of the company, and it accepted the terms of the act.
Before this permission was finally granted a number of bills were
introduced in the Congress covering the same subject, which were
referred to Government engineers. Reports were made by these officers in
every case insisting upon a construction with a single span and without
piers in the bed of the river.

The eighth subdivision of the bill herewith returned provides that any
company heretofore created for the purpose of bridging the river may
avail itself of the provisions of the act, and makes such company
subject to all its provisions. This, of course, has reference to
the North River Bridge Company and releases that company from the
prohibition of the act under which it was permitted to span the river
and permits it to construct piers in the river. It seems to me that
the language of the bill under consideration, so far as it relates to
this particular feature, is equivalent to a new grant to that company,
differing very materially from the grant which was thought expedient at
the time it was before the Congress, and removes the guaranty that in
the construction of its bridge there shall be no obstructions in the
river such as were especially guarded against by the bill originally
passed for its benefit. In effect a new charter is granted to a company
not named in the bill, and with no apparent reason for the important
enlargement of its privileges thus accomplished. It is entirely apparent
that the reasons against obstructions in the North River which might
interfere with commerce and navigation and the beneficial use of the
harbor of New York are immensely strengthened when they are applied to
a location in the river far below the location of the bridge which is
permitted in the bill now before me.

Whatever question there may be about the injurious character of the
obstruction at Sixty-sixth street in New York City, I believe there can
be no doubt whatever that piers placed in the ri