786 FEDERAL REPORTER. �stream, where they can lay without expense. Ail the nav- igable waters of this harbor will be needed for the use and accommodation of shipping. In San Francisco, where a large portion of the shipping lies out in the stream, my recol- lection, from judicial investigation, is that a clear passage- way of 600 feet or yards — I think the latter — from the end of the "wharves is always kept open, and even then collisions often occur, as the records of the courts there will show. �Ail these things are to be considered in determining whether it is good policy, even if congress could be brought to consent to it, to bisect this harbor with a bridge that would render it unnavigable along its line, except at a par- ticular point. But when we consider the commerce of the city, the size of the harbor, and the character of the vessels that corne to the port, we think the erection of this bridge will prove a great obstruction to the navigation of the river, both on accoant of the insufficiency of the draw, and, gener- ally considered, as a bridge, and therefore be injurious to the plaintiffs; and, so considering, we feel bound to grant this injunction. �Objection bas been made that the plaintiffs have been guilty of delay in applying for this preliminary injunction. There are cases in which such an objection bas force, but it does not apply here. This is a matter in which a large num- ber of people are interested, and usually what is everybody's business is nobody's business. It is a large task for any one man to undertake to conduct a litigation against a large Com- pany, and it is one he #ould not undertake unless he was compeUed to. It is alleged in the bill, and the evidence shows, that the plaintiffs have actually been compelled to sue, because the owners of vessels have refused to take them to their wharves on account of the danger of passing this con- struction, even in its present condition, when there is some- thing more than the mere draw to go through ; and they may not have been aware of the extent that the bridge would prove an obstruction, until it was so developed and shown. The bill was filed in January, and I think there bas been no gfeat delay, the circumstances considered. ��� �
