The Charles River Bridge CaseJoin now to read essay The Charles River Bridge CaseCharles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837)[1], was a case 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 Charleston. When the Commonwealth of Massachusetts sanctioned another company to build the Warren Bridge, which 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 Taneys tenure as Chief Justice.
The controversy over the Charles River Bridge dated as far back as October 17, 1640 when the Massachusetts legislature, in accordance with common law, 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 Charleston. 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.
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 1792, the Massachusetts legislature gave another company a charter to build a bridge, across the same river, between Cambridge and Boston. The second bridge was a considerable distance 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.
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 value of $333.33 sold for $1,650 in 1805, and by 1814, their price had risen to $2,080.[2] 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 were not about 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 Charleston, which would be in direct competition with the Charles River Bridge. Eventually, the legislature agreed to grant a charter for a new bridge between Charleston 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
Construction of the Warren Bridge in 1840 was a tremendous success, and as long as Boston had remained in place of the Charles River Bridge, the project would continue to be carried on. When it appeared that a bridge that seemed so much like it could be built was the only viable bridge on the river, the legislature allowed a large portion of the money that had been collected in those 1820s up for maintenance and installation.
The Bridge of Boston was considered a major barrier to Boston. Though its size did not increase as much as New York did back then, its public perception of its importance caused it to be more often talked about than talked about. For example, during the Boston Fair of 1843, over 4 out of 10 people in New York, Massachusetts, were non-protestant.
The Hartford Courant reported the following:
The William E. Clark School is composed of about 500 school-dwellers and 2,400 pupils, some of whom have had to flee their own homes to get some relief. All had to go. In 1688, the Boston Common Council approved a plan for building a new Connecticut highway to cross the George and Hartford Rivers, as the only route in their territory where an expressway would be built.[36]
In 1854, Senator John Kaptur introduced the Bridge of Boston to the Massachusetts Legislature, a decision which saw the state’s legislature allow private companies to build the bridge for the express Highway of the Charles Rivers. Boston and St. Albans and St. Petersburg followed suit for the same two years
The Bridge of Boston was supposed to be on the opposite side of Connecticut to New Haven but was only on the opposite side of the river near Boston. The proposed bridge for the Charles River was so opposed that the Massachusetts State Transportation Commission made the decision to permit private parties to build the bridge on the bridge in 1855 but ultimately voted to make the plan contingent upon the state government giving the Governor the authority and the power. In 1858 Governor George Washington agreed the Bridge of Boston should be built under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth (Govt). Although Connecticut was not the only state with an expressway, it had its own system of road transportation. In the meantime, a proposal for a cross-town bridge for the Boston Common was introduced by the Massachusetts senator John Kaptur in 1862. The Massachusetts legislature ultimately approved the plan but then took the action of having the Governor approve it.
The cross-town bridge would be built in Boston before New England. Its size and appearance were considered to be sufficient. The Massachusetts State Legislature was unwilling to allow private companies to build the bridge on the Charles Bridge for the express Highway of the Charles Rivers, which did not take much consideration of the public perception of Boston. Consequently, the Connecticut Legislature passed a plan of the two states combining the two towns to give Boston their own highway. This change in attitude was followed by the crossing of the Charles River in 1878.