uiO PBDEEAL BEPOBTEB. �In pursuance of this power to regulate commerce congress bas provided (title L of the Eev. St.) that certain vessels, when enrolled and licensed as required by law, shall have the right to engage in the coasting trade ; that is, the trade upon the navigable -waters of the United States. The plaintiff Hatch is the owner of a vessel so enrolled and licensed for this district, and his contention is that this bridge will and does prevent the enjoyment of this right, and therefore this suit arises ont of a law of congress, as applied to the facts and circumstances of the case. �Again, the act of congress of February 14, 1859, (il St. 383,) admitting Oregon into the Union, provides (section 2) "that ail the navigable waters of said state [Oregon] shall be com- mon highways and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of said state as to all other citizens of the United States, with- out anytax, duty, toU, or impost therefor." Both the plain- tiffs are riparian proprietors upon the stream over which this bridge is being built, and their contention is that it does and will obstruct the navigation of the river so as to prevent its being used as a common highway, to their injury as such pro- prietors, and therefore this suit arises out of a law of congress as applied to the facts and circumstances of the case. �To sustain jurisdiction under this clause of the act of 1875, supra, it is not necessary to show or assume that the plain- tiffs are entitled to the relief sought, but it is suf&cient if the controversy turns upon or grows out of the proper construc- tion or application of these acts of congress, or either of them. �The power to authorize the erection of a bridge over a nav- igable water of a state, for the convenience of the inhabitants thereof, belongs to the state as a part of its general police power. Congress does not possess this authority directly, eo nomine; but its control over the navigable waters of the states, as a means of commerce, gives it a practical veto upon the power of the state in this respect. Therefore, no state can authorize or maintain the erection of a bridge over a navigable water, which in effeet contravenes or conflicts with the law of con- gress concerning the navigation of the same; and the fact ��� �
