MO. EIV. PKT. CO. V. H. A ST. 3. B. 00. 289 �with the pier. If you shall find from the testimony that the Kansas City bridge was built diagonally across the river, and not at right angles with the piers of the bridge, the measure- ment along the line of the track of the railroad or the chord of the bridge is not the proper measurement, and the dis- tance of 160 feet thus obtained is not a eompliance with the act of congress requiring 160 feet in the clear, and to the extent of this difference between a line at right angles with the piers and the measurement along the track or chord of the Kansas City bridge, it is an unauthorized structure; so far, at least, as any question pertaining to and connected with this case is concemed. Though you may find from the testimony that the width between the piers as constructed is less than the act of congress requires, yet this violation of law by defendant in the construction of its bridge is not available to plaintiff in recovering damages unless it has caused or con- tributed to the injury by plaintiff complained of." �The contention of the defendant is that the distance of 160 feet in îength in the clear on eaoh side of the central or pivot pier of the draw must necessarily be measured along the track of the railroad or the chord of the bridge. The con- struction given to the law by the court in its charge requires that the measurement should be across the channel, and if the superstructure was found to be not at right angles to the current, then the measurement along the line of the bridge was not the proper one. In construing the act of congress we must look to the spirit and reason of the law. It was an act authorizing a structure to be placed in one of the navi- gable rivers of the United States. The purpose of the second section was to reserve, for the purposes of navigation, a cer- tain amount of open space; or, in otherwords, space "in the clear," wholly unobstructed and available for the passage of vessels. To aceomplish this purpose the law requires that the piers must be parallel with the current of the river. �If it be granted that a measurement along a line which deviates from a course directly across the channel is the proper one, then it would foUow that the actual passage way might be less than that required by the act. The greater the �v.2,no.3— 19 ����
