They also showed that at that early day surveys for the improvement of the navigation of the river had been made at the instance of the corporation of New York ; that Macomb had been guilty of violating his grant by not putting a draw in his dam, and asked the Legislature to compel the water commissioners to direct such an erection across the river aswotild not impede navigation. Counsel were eniployed, wlio gave an opinion that the people had a right to remove the existing nuisances by force, and the result was Mr. Lewis G. Morris' forcible passage of McCoinb's dam, as elsewhere related in this chapter.

determined he had a right to demand passage for his vessel. The Renwicks then brought suit in the Superior Court to recover from Morris the damages for his alleged trespass, but on the trial the judge charged the jury that the dam as built was a public nuisance and that any one had a right to abate it. An apjieal was then taken to the Supreme Court and there Mr. Justice Cowen held likewise. Not content with this decision, the Renwicks carried the, suit to the Court of Errors on appeal, where all the judgments below were affirmed.

Chancellor Walworth wrote the opinion ; among other things he said : " The Harlem River is an arm of the sea and a public navigable river; it was a public nuisance to obstruct the navigation thereof without authority of law. The act of the Legislature did not authorize the obstruction of the navigation of the river in the manner in which it was done by the dam in question." He also held that no time runs against a public nuisance.'^