HATCH V. WAIiLAMET lEON BBIDGE CO. 829 �that bank is now occupied by wbarves and warehouses en- gaged in the commerce of the Wallamet valley, and other portions of thecoast and Europe; that the space allowed for a draw in said bridge is too narrow to admit the passage of vessels with safety, and therefore they cannot and will nbt come to complainants' wharves to diseharge and receive cargo, to their great and permanent injury; that the plaintiff Hatch is the owner of an enrolled and licensed steamboat — the A. A. McCully — which is employed in towing vessels to and from ihe wharves aforesaid upon the river aforesaid, and that the erection of said bridge with so narrow a draw-open- ing prevents the same from being done with safety, to his injury. �It appears from the affidavit of C. H. Gorril that he and his brother, E. W. Gorril, of California, are stockholders in the defendant corporation, and are engaged as contractors in the construction of the bridge; that they are to receive $150,000 for the work, and are under bonds in the sum of $20,000 to complete the same by April 1, 1882; that they have expended on the work $50,000, including the purchase and preparation of the timber and lumber for seven of the eight spans, and ail the iron for the same, and that if not restrained by this court they will complete the bridge by June Ist. �Section 1 of the act of March 3, 1875, (18 St. 470,) which, among other things, gives this court jurisdiction of a suit in equity arising under a law of the United States, includes this case. �Congress bas power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, "(Const. art. 1, § 8 ;) and this includes, for the purpose of commerce, the control of ail the navigable waters of the United States which are accessi- ble from a state other than that in which they lie. For this purpose they are the waters of the nation, and subject to the^ legislation of congress in every particular atfeeting their navi- gability or use as instruments or means of commerce. Gib- bons V. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 ; Penn. v. W. a B. Bridge Co. 18- How. 431 ; Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 724. ��� �
