Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge
Encyclopedia
Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837), was a case regarding the Charles River Bridge and the Warren Bridge
of Boston
, Massachusetts
, heard by the United States Supreme Court
under the leadership of Chief Justice
Roger B. Taney
. The case settled a dispute over the constitutional
clause regarding obligation of contract
.
In 1785, the Charles River Bridge Company had been granted a charter
to construct a bridge
over the Charles River
connecting Boston and Cambridge
. When the Commonwealth of Massachusetts sanctioned another company to build the Warren Bridge
, chartered 1828, that would be very close in proximity to the first bridge and would connect the same two cities, the proprietors of the Charles River Bridge claimed that the Massachusetts legislature had broken its contract with the Charles River Bridge Company, and thus the contract had been violated. The owners of the first bridge claimed that the charter had implied exclusive rights to the Charles River Bridge Company. The Court ultimately sided with Warren Bridge. This decision was received with mixed opinions, and had some impact on the remainder of Taney's tenure as Chief Justice.
, assumed control over public ferries. The legislature proceeded to give Harvard College
the power to run a ferry on the Charles River between Boston and Charlestown. Harvard continued to operate the ferry, and collect its profits until 1785. That year, a group of men petitioned the state legislature to build a bridge across the river due to the inconvenience of the ferry. As time had passed, the two towns had grown and communication between them had become more important, and technology was at a point now where a bridge appeared to be a wise economic undertaking.
The request was granted and the Charles River Bridge Company was given permission to build a bridge and collect tolls for 40 years, but during those 40 years the company would have to pay 200 pounds (or ~$670) to Harvard College annually in order to make up for the profits the college would lose from the ferry. After 40 years of collecting tolls, the company would turn the bridge over to the state, but the government would still have to pay Harvard annually. In 1792, the Massachusetts legislature extended this charter to seventy years from the opening of the bridge.
The bridge was a giant success. It made large profits and proved to be very convenient. As a result, plans to construct more bridges were set into motion. In 1828, the Massachusetts legislature gave another company a charter to build a bridge, across the same river, between Cambridge
and Boston. The second bridge was 275 yards from the first one, but the proprietors of the first bridge still complained. The owners of the Charles River Bridge argued to the legislature that building the second bridge would take away traffic and revenue from the first bridge. The legislature responded by giving the proprietors of the Charles River Bridge another 30 years to collect tolls.
of $333.33 sold for $1,650 in 1805, and by 1814, their price had risen to $2,080.http://www.historyofsupremecourt.org/history/defines/timeline.htm By 1823, the value of the company was estimated to be $280,000, a substantial increase from its original value of $50,000. Between 1786 and 1827 the Charles River Bridge had collected $824,798 in tolls. Very few of the shares belonged to the company’s original investors at this time, and the stock was now owned by men who had bought it at very high prices. The public started to complain about having to continue to pay tolls after the bridge’s profits had far surpassed the original capital, with interest; but the new investors did not care. In their opinion, they had paid a large sum for the bridge stock, and they did not wish to stop collecting tolls until they themselves had turned a profit. These proprietors decided not to meet any of the public’s demands, and they refused both to improve services and reduce tolls.
There were multiple attempts to convince the state legislature to give permission to build a new bridge between Boston and Charlestown, which would be in direct competition with the Charles River Bridge. Eventually, the legislature agreed to grant a charter for a new bridge between Charlestown and Boston. In 1828, a company was given the rights to build the Warren Bridge
, which would be extraordinarily close to the Charles River Bridge. The Warren Bridge would be turned over to the state once enough tolls had been collected to pay for the bridge’s construction, or after a maximum of 6 years, after which it would be free to the public. Since it was free, and so close to the Charles River Bridge, the Warren Bridge would obviously take all of the competing bridge’s traffic, and therefore its construction would leave the stock of the Charles River Bridge
, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts".
It appears as though Chief Justice John Marshall
, Justice Joseph Story
and Justice Smith Thompson
, were all in agreement that the Massachusetts legislature had indeed violated the obligation of contract clause in the constitution, but because of justice absences, and disagreements between the justices, no final decision was reached.
Due to more absences of justices, the case was not argued again for six years. During those six years, three new justices had been appointed by President Andrew Jackson
, including the new Chief Justice, Roger Taney; the Warren Bridge had been constructed, and made back the money it had cost to build, and had become a toll-free bridge. The Charles River Bridge was now closed, since it was no longer getting any traffic due to its toll.
Before the Charles River Bridge case was argued before the Supreme Court again, there was a situation in 1833 involving the Camden and Amboy Railroad and the Delaware and Raritan Canal
companies. This was not a case that went before the Supreme Court, but many prominent lawyers and justices were asked for their opinion on the situation, and among them was Taney, who was then the Attorney General of the United States. Both of the companies had convinced the New Jersey
legislature of 1832 to add a condition to their charters that no other companies would be able to build a means of transportation between Philadelphia and New York City
for a certain amount of time. Taney’s opinion on the case was that no legislature should have the power to stop the state from creating internal improvements because it was such an important aspect of the state’s power. He is quoted saying, "The existence of such a power [i.e. the power to block the state from making improvements that serve the public good] in a representative body has no foundation in reason, or in public convenience, and is inconsistent with the principles upon which all our political institutions are founded."
represented the Charles River Bridge Company; Simon Greenleaf
, a Harvard Law School
professor, and John Davis
, a Whig
senator, represented Warren Bridge Company.
The lawyers defending the Warren Bridge said that exclusive rights were not mentioned in the charter. The Charles River Bridge lawyers countered that, even though competing bridges were never explicitly addressed in the charter, it was implied in the contract that the Charles River Bridge Company had exclusivity to the bridge traffic between Charlestown and Boston.
The Charles River Bridge lawyers tried to appeal to the Court by arguing that the Court’s prime interest should be to protect the property interests of the nation. "I took to the law, to the administration of the law, and, above all, to the supremacy of the law, as it resides in this court," Dutton said, "for the protection of the rights of persons and property, against all encroachments by the inadvertent legislation of the states. So long as this court shall continue to exercise this most salutary and highest of all its functions, the whole legislation of the country will be kept within its constitutional sphere of action."
The plaintiffs discussed what effect the Supreme Court’s decision would have on the security of property rights and on the general public around the country. Dutton stated that ten million dollars of property was at stake in Massachusetts alone. He argued that if the Court sided with the defense, the public would then be able to urge the legislature to render other corporations' property valueless, as it had for the Charles River Bridge Company. Dutton further claimed that since the Warren Bridge had now taken all of the traffic of the Charles River Bridge, the construction of the Warren Bridge had been an act of confiscation, and that the property of the plaintiffs had been taken from them and given to the public. If the Court sided with Warren Bridge, Dutton argued, then "all sense of security for the rights of persons and property would be lost."
The Warren Bridge lawyers responded that the state legislature’s power was more limited than its opponents believed, and that the legislature did not have the power to give exclusive rights to a private enterprise such as the Charles River Bridge Company. Greenleaf argued that the legislature was entrusted with the right to "provide safe and convenient public ways," and that this right was to be used to benefit the public good; clearly, giving the Charles River Bridge Company exclusive rights would not better the public. The Warren Bridge lawyers also argued on the basis of eminent domain
, which enables federal and state governments to take private property for public use as long as it provides the owner with compensation. The defense argued that this was a state, not federal, issue, and should not even be heard in the United States Supreme Court. Finally, the Warren Bridge lawyers pointed out that the Charles River Bridge was not an isolated situation; other enterprises had lost money because of public improvements, such as highways, which lost tolls when railroads were built.
. Justice John McLean
read an opinion stating that he was in favor of the Charles River Bridge company but that it was not the Supreme Court’s place to make a decision. Justice Story read a dissenting opinion
entirely in favor of the Charles River Bridge Company.
In his opinion, Taney argued that the case was strictly about interpretation of contract, and that the charter contract should be interpreted as narrowly as possible, which meant that the Charles River Bridge did not have exclusive rights. He also stated that, in general, public grants should be interpreted closely and if there is ever any uncertainty in a contract, the decision made should be one to better the public. He said, "While the rights of private property are sacredly guarded, we must not forget that the community also have rights, and that the happiness and well-being of every citizen depends on their faithful preservation." In his remarks, Taney also explored what the negative effects on the country would be if the Court had sided with the Charles River Bridge Company. He stated that had that been the decision of the Court, transportation would be affected around the whole country. Taney made the point that with the rise of technology, canal
s and railroads had started to take away business from highway
s, and if charters granted monopolies
to corporations, then these sorts of transportation improvements would not be able to flourish. If this were the case then, Taney said, the country would "be thrown back to the improvements of the last century, and obliged to stand still".
were very much in favor of the decision because they saw it as a victory for state’s rights, one of the party’s leading platforms at the time. One Democratic magazine wrote, in regard to Taney’s opinion, "he pursues his unbroken chain of clear, logical reasoning, spreads light all around, leaving no cloud to confound or mislead those who may come after him."
The Whig Party, on the other hand, was much more disapproving of the decision. Members of the party felt that the Massachusetts legislature had violated its contract, and that it was the federal government’s responsibility to fix the state’s mistake. The federal government’s failure to do so led the Whigs to believe that the power of the federal government was in decline. The Whigs, who were largely businessmen, also feared that corporate property now had no legal protection. Chancellor James Kent
wrote in the Whig magazine, The New York Review, "A gathering gloom is cast over the future. We seem to have sunk suddenly below the horizon, to have lost the light of the sun." (2 New York Review 372, 385 (1838)) Many prominent men, including Daniel Webster and Chancellor Kent, a well-known jurist, expressed their disappointment in the Supreme Court for allegedly violating the Constitution. Kent wrote, in a letter to Justice Story, "The court has fallen from its high station and commanding dignity, and has lost its energy, and spirit of independence, and accuracy, and surrendered up to the spirit of the day, the true principles of the Constitution."
Warren Bridge
The Warren Bridge connected downtown Boston, Massachusetts with Charlestown from its construction in the 1820s until its demolition in 1962. It was replaced by the Charles River Dam in 1978....
of Boston
Boston
Boston is the capital of and largest city in Massachusetts, and is one of the oldest cities in the United States. The largest city in New England, Boston is regarded as the unofficial "Capital of New England" for its economic and cultural impact on the entire New England region. The city proper had...
, Massachusetts
Massachusetts
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a state in the New England region of the northeastern United States of America. It is bordered by Rhode Island and Connecticut to the south, New York to the west, and Vermont and New Hampshire to the north; at its east lies the Atlantic Ocean. As of the 2010...
, heard by the United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
under the leadership of Chief Justice
Chief Justice of the United States
The Chief Justice of the United States is the head of the United States federal court system and the chief judge of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Chief Justice is one of nine Supreme Court justices; the other eight are the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States...
Roger B. Taney
Roger B. Taney
Roger Brooke Taney was the fifth Chief Justice of the United States, holding that office from 1836 until his death in 1864. He was the first Roman Catholic to hold that office or sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. He was also the eleventh United States Attorney General. He is most...
. The case settled a dispute over the constitutional
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
clause regarding obligation of contract
Contract Clause
The Contract Clause appears in the United States Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 1. It states:The Contract Clause prohibits states from enacting any law that retroactively impairs contract rights...
.
In 1785, the Charles River Bridge Company had been granted a charter
Charter
A charter is the grant of authority or rights, stating that the granter formally recognizes the prerogative of the recipient to exercise the rights specified...
to construct a bridge
Bridge
A bridge is a structure built to span physical obstacles such as a body of water, valley, or road, for the purpose of providing passage over the obstacle...
over the Charles River
Charles River
The Charles River is an long river that flows in an overall northeasterly direction in eastern Massachusetts, USA. From its source in Hopkinton, the river travels through 22 cities and towns until reaching the Atlantic Ocean at Boston...
connecting Boston and Cambridge
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Cambridge is a city in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, United States, in the Greater Boston area. It was named in honor of the University of Cambridge in England, an important center of the Puritan theology embraced by the town's founders. Cambridge is home to two of the world's most prominent...
. When the Commonwealth of Massachusetts sanctioned another company to build the Warren Bridge
Warren Bridge
The Warren Bridge connected downtown Boston, Massachusetts with Charlestown from its construction in the 1820s until its demolition in 1962. It was replaced by the Charles River Dam in 1978....
, chartered 1828, that would be very close in proximity to the first bridge and would connect the same two cities, the proprietors of the Charles River Bridge claimed that the Massachusetts legislature had broken its contract with the Charles River Bridge Company, and thus the contract had been violated. The owners of the first bridge claimed that the charter had implied exclusive rights to the Charles River Bridge Company. The Court ultimately sided with Warren Bridge. This decision was received with mixed opinions, and had some impact on the remainder of Taney's tenure as Chief Justice.
Charles River Bridge
The controversy over the Charles River Bridge dated as far back as October 15, 1640 when the Massachusetts legislature, in accordance with common lawCommon law
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
, assumed control over public ferries. The legislature proceeded to give Harvard College
Harvard College
Harvard College, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is one of two schools within Harvard University granting undergraduate degrees...
the power to run a ferry on the Charles River between Boston and Charlestown. Harvard continued to operate the ferry, and collect its profits until 1785. That year, a group of men petitioned the state legislature to build a bridge across the river due to the inconvenience of the ferry. As time had passed, the two towns had grown and communication between them had become more important, and technology was at a point now where a bridge appeared to be a wise economic undertaking.
The request was granted and the Charles River Bridge Company was given permission to build a bridge and collect tolls for 40 years, but during those 40 years the company would have to pay 200 pounds (or ~$670) to Harvard College annually in order to make up for the profits the college would lose from the ferry. After 40 years of collecting tolls, the company would turn the bridge over to the state, but the government would still have to pay Harvard annually. In 1792, the Massachusetts legislature extended this charter to seventy years from the opening of the bridge.
The bridge was a giant success. It made large profits and proved to be very convenient. As a result, plans to construct more bridges were set into motion. In 1828, the Massachusetts legislature gave another company a charter to build a bridge, across the same river, between Cambridge
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Cambridge is a city in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, United States, in the Greater Boston area. It was named in honor of the University of Cambridge in England, an important center of the Puritan theology embraced by the town's founders. Cambridge is home to two of the world's most prominent...
and Boston. The second bridge was 275 yards from the first one, but the proprietors of the first bridge still complained. The owners of the Charles River Bridge argued to the legislature that building the second bridge would take away traffic and revenue from the first bridge. The legislature responded by giving the proprietors of the Charles River Bridge another 30 years to collect tolls.
Warren Bridge
As more time passed, the population of Boston increased, as did the amount of business the city was doing with the rest of the world. With these increases, the Charles River Bridge collected more and more profits, and the value of Charles River Bridge Company stock started to rise. Shares that had a par valuePar value
Par value, in finance and accounting, means stated value or face value. From this comes the expressions at par , over par and under par ....
of $333.33 sold for $1,650 in 1805, and by 1814, their price had risen to $2,080.http://www.historyofsupremecourt.org/history/defines/timeline.htm By 1823, the value of the company was estimated to be $280,000, a substantial increase from its original value of $50,000. Between 1786 and 1827 the Charles River Bridge had collected $824,798 in tolls. Very few of the shares belonged to the company’s original investors at this time, and the stock was now owned by men who had bought it at very high prices. The public started to complain about having to continue to pay tolls after the bridge’s profits had far surpassed the original capital, with interest; but the new investors did not care. In their opinion, they had paid a large sum for the bridge stock, and they did not wish to stop collecting tolls until they themselves had turned a profit. These proprietors decided not to meet any of the public’s demands, and they refused both to improve services and reduce tolls.
There were multiple attempts to convince the state legislature to give permission to build a new bridge between Boston and Charlestown, which would be in direct competition with the Charles River Bridge. Eventually, the legislature agreed to grant a charter for a new bridge between Charlestown and Boston. In 1828, a company was given the rights to build the Warren Bridge
Warren Bridge
The Warren Bridge connected downtown Boston, Massachusetts with Charlestown from its construction in the 1820s until its demolition in 1962. It was replaced by the Charles River Dam in 1978....
, which would be extraordinarily close to the Charles River Bridge. The Warren Bridge would be turned over to the state once enough tolls had been collected to pay for the bridge’s construction, or after a maximum of 6 years, after which it would be free to the public. Since it was free, and so close to the Charles River Bridge, the Warren Bridge would obviously take all of the competing bridge’s traffic, and therefore its construction would leave the stock of the Charles River Bridge
Arguing the Case
After the charter had been granted, the Charles River Bridge Company filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in an effort to stop the erection of the second bridge. The endeavor failed, and the case was taken to the United States Supreme Court. The case was argued before the Court in 1831, where the plaintiffs argued that it was unconstitutional for the Massachusetts legislature to charter the Warren Bridge, because creating a competing bridge violated the contract clause in Article I, Section 10, which states, "No State shall pass any Bill of AttainderBill of attainder
A bill of attainder is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a judicial trial.-English law:...
, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts".
It appears as though Chief Justice John Marshall
John Marshall
John Marshall was the Chief Justice of the United States whose court opinions helped lay the basis for American constitutional law and made the Supreme Court of the United States a coequal branch of government along with the legislative and executive branches...
, Justice Joseph Story
Joseph Story
Joseph Story was an American lawyer and jurist who served on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1811 to 1845. He is most remembered today for his opinions in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee and The Amistad, along with his magisterial Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, first...
and Justice Smith Thompson
Smith Thompson
Smith Thompson was a United States Secretary of the Navy from 1818 to 1823, and a United States Supreme Court Associate Justice from 1823 until his death in 1843....
, were all in agreement that the Massachusetts legislature had indeed violated the obligation of contract clause in the constitution, but because of justice absences, and disagreements between the justices, no final decision was reached.
Due to more absences of justices, the case was not argued again for six years. During those six years, three new justices had been appointed by President Andrew Jackson
Andrew Jackson
Andrew Jackson was the seventh President of the United States . Based in frontier Tennessee, Jackson was a politician and army general who defeated the Creek Indians at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend , and the British at the Battle of New Orleans...
, including the new Chief Justice, Roger Taney; the Warren Bridge had been constructed, and made back the money it had cost to build, and had become a toll-free bridge. The Charles River Bridge was now closed, since it was no longer getting any traffic due to its toll.
Before the Charles River Bridge case was argued before the Supreme Court again, there was a situation in 1833 involving the Camden and Amboy Railroad and the Delaware and Raritan Canal
Delaware and Raritan Canal
The Delaware and Raritan Canal is a canal in central New Jersey, United States, built in the 1830s that served to connect the Delaware River to the Raritan River. It was intended as an efficient and reliable means of transportation of freight between Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and New York City,...
companies. This was not a case that went before the Supreme Court, but many prominent lawyers and justices were asked for their opinion on the situation, and among them was Taney, who was then the Attorney General of the United States. Both of the companies had convinced the New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey is a state in the Northeastern and Middle Atlantic regions of the United States. , its population was 8,791,894. It is bordered on the north and east by the state of New York, on the southeast and south by the Atlantic Ocean, on the west by Pennsylvania and on the southwest by Delaware...
legislature of 1832 to add a condition to their charters that no other companies would be able to build a means of transportation between Philadelphia and New York City
New York City
New York is the most populous city in the United States and the center of the New York Metropolitan Area, one of the most populous metropolitan areas in the world. New York exerts a significant impact upon global commerce, finance, media, art, fashion, research, technology, education, and...
for a certain amount of time. Taney’s opinion on the case was that no legislature should have the power to stop the state from creating internal improvements because it was such an important aspect of the state’s power. He is quoted saying, "The existence of such a power [i.e. the power to block the state from making improvements that serve the public good] in a representative body has no foundation in reason, or in public convenience, and is inconsistent with the principles upon which all our political institutions are founded."
Rearguing the Case
The case of Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge began again, on January 19, 1837. Warren Dutton and Daniel WebsterDaniel Webster
Daniel Webster was a leading American statesman and senator from Massachusetts during the period leading up to the Civil War. He first rose to regional prominence through his defense of New England shipping interests...
represented the Charles River Bridge Company; Simon Greenleaf
Simon Greenleaf
Simon Greenleaf , American lawyer and jurist, was born at Newburyport, Massachusetts.-Early life and legal career:...
, a Harvard Law School
Harvard Law School
Harvard Law School is one of the professional graduate schools of Harvard University. Located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, it is the oldest continually-operating law school in the United States and is home to the largest academic law library in the world. The school is routinely ranked by the U.S...
professor, and John Davis
John Davis (Massachusetts Governor)
John Davis was an American lawyer, businessman and politician.-Early life:John Davis was born in Northborough, Massachusetts...
, a Whig
Whig Party (United States)
The Whig Party was a political party of the United States during the era of Jacksonian democracy. Considered integral to the Second Party System and operating from the early 1830s to the mid-1850s, the party was formed in opposition to the policies of President Andrew Jackson and his Democratic...
senator, represented Warren Bridge Company.
The lawyers defending the Warren Bridge said that exclusive rights were not mentioned in the charter. The Charles River Bridge lawyers countered that, even though competing bridges were never explicitly addressed in the charter, it was implied in the contract that the Charles River Bridge Company had exclusivity to the bridge traffic between Charlestown and Boston.
The Charles River Bridge lawyers tried to appeal to the Court by arguing that the Court’s prime interest should be to protect the property interests of the nation. "I took to the law, to the administration of the law, and, above all, to the supremacy of the law, as it resides in this court," Dutton said, "for the protection of the rights of persons and property, against all encroachments by the inadvertent legislation of the states. So long as this court shall continue to exercise this most salutary and highest of all its functions, the whole legislation of the country will be kept within its constitutional sphere of action."
The plaintiffs discussed what effect the Supreme Court’s decision would have on the security of property rights and on the general public around the country. Dutton stated that ten million dollars of property was at stake in Massachusetts alone. He argued that if the Court sided with the defense, the public would then be able to urge the legislature to render other corporations' property valueless, as it had for the Charles River Bridge Company. Dutton further claimed that since the Warren Bridge had now taken all of the traffic of the Charles River Bridge, the construction of the Warren Bridge had been an act of confiscation, and that the property of the plaintiffs had been taken from them and given to the public. If the Court sided with Warren Bridge, Dutton argued, then "all sense of security for the rights of persons and property would be lost."
The Warren Bridge lawyers responded that the state legislature’s power was more limited than its opponents believed, and that the legislature did not have the power to give exclusive rights to a private enterprise such as the Charles River Bridge Company. Greenleaf argued that the legislature was entrusted with the right to "provide safe and convenient public ways," and that this right was to be used to benefit the public good; clearly, giving the Charles River Bridge Company exclusive rights would not better the public. The Warren Bridge lawyers also argued on the basis of eminent domain
Eminent domain
Eminent domain , compulsory purchase , resumption/compulsory acquisition , or expropriation is an action of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent...
, which enables federal and state governments to take private property for public use as long as it provides the owner with compensation. The defense argued that this was a state, not federal, issue, and should not even be heard in the United States Supreme Court. Finally, the Warren Bridge lawyers pointed out that the Charles River Bridge was not an isolated situation; other enterprises had lost money because of public improvements, such as highways, which lost tolls when railroads were built.
Deciding the Case
A decision was read on February 14, 1837, which was 5-2in favor of Warren Bridge. Taney read the majority opinionMajority opinion
In law, a majority opinion is a judicial opinion agreed to by more than half of the members of a court. A majority opinion sets forth the decision of the court and an explanation of the rationale behind the court's decision....
. Justice John McLean
John McLean
John McLean was an American jurist and politician who served in the United States Congress, as U.S. Postmaster General, and as a justice on the Ohio and U.S...
read an opinion stating that he was in favor of the Charles River Bridge company but that it was not the Supreme Court’s place to make a decision. Justice Story read a dissenting opinion
Dissenting opinion
A dissenting opinion is an opinion in a legal case written by one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the court which gives rise to its judgment....
entirely in favor of the Charles River Bridge Company.
In his opinion, Taney argued that the case was strictly about interpretation of contract, and that the charter contract should be interpreted as narrowly as possible, which meant that the Charles River Bridge did not have exclusive rights. He also stated that, in general, public grants should be interpreted closely and if there is ever any uncertainty in a contract, the decision made should be one to better the public. He said, "While the rights of private property are sacredly guarded, we must not forget that the community also have rights, and that the happiness and well-being of every citizen depends on their faithful preservation." In his remarks, Taney also explored what the negative effects on the country would be if the Court had sided with the Charles River Bridge Company. He stated that had that been the decision of the Court, transportation would be affected around the whole country. Taney made the point that with the rise of technology, canal
Canal
Canals are man-made channels for water. There are two types of canal:#Waterways: navigable transportation canals used for carrying ships and boats shipping goods and conveying people, further subdivided into two kinds:...
s and railroads had started to take away business from highway
Highway
A highway is any public road. In American English, the term is common and almost always designates major roads. In British English, the term designates any road open to the public. Any interconnected set of highways can be variously referred to as a "highway system", a "highway network", or a...
s, and if charters granted monopolies
Monopoly
A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity...
to corporations, then these sorts of transportation improvements would not be able to flourish. If this were the case then, Taney said, the country would "be thrown back to the improvements of the last century, and obliged to stand still".
Reactions
The reactions to Bridge generally varied according to the political views of the critic in questions. DemocratsDemocratic Party (United States)
The Democratic Party is one of two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the Republican Party. The party's socially liberal and progressive platform is largely considered center-left in the U.S. political spectrum. The party has the lengthiest record of continuous...
were very much in favor of the decision because they saw it as a victory for state’s rights, one of the party’s leading platforms at the time. One Democratic magazine wrote, in regard to Taney’s opinion, "he pursues his unbroken chain of clear, logical reasoning, spreads light all around, leaving no cloud to confound or mislead those who may come after him."
The Whig Party, on the other hand, was much more disapproving of the decision. Members of the party felt that the Massachusetts legislature had violated its contract, and that it was the federal government’s responsibility to fix the state’s mistake. The federal government’s failure to do so led the Whigs to believe that the power of the federal government was in decline. The Whigs, who were largely businessmen, also feared that corporate property now had no legal protection. Chancellor James Kent
James Kent
James Kent was an American jurist and legal scholar.-Life:...
wrote in the Whig magazine, The New York Review, "A gathering gloom is cast over the future. We seem to have sunk suddenly below the horizon, to have lost the light of the sun." (2 New York Review 372, 385 (1838)) Many prominent men, including Daniel Webster and Chancellor Kent, a well-known jurist, expressed their disappointment in the Supreme Court for allegedly violating the Constitution. Kent wrote, in a letter to Justice Story, "The court has fallen from its high station and commanding dignity, and has lost its energy, and spirit of independence, and accuracy, and surrendered up to the spirit of the day, the true principles of the Constitution."
Further reading
- Newmyer, Kent. "Justice Joseph Story: The Charles River Bridge Case and the Crisis of Republicanism," American Journal of Legal History July 1973, Vol. 17 Issue 3, pp 232-245