On the 5th of NovemberRichard Brown in allowed to keep a ferry over Charles river, against his house, and the rates are there stated. And in delivering the opinion of the Court, the late Chief Justice states the principle, in the following clear and emphatic language.
Suppose the legislature had authorized the construction of an impassable wall, which encircled the ends of the bridge, so as to prevent passengers from crossing on it.
The preamble recites that the bridge "will be of great public utility;" and that is the only reason they assign, for passing the law which incorporates this company. On the 7th of the 8th month, the ferry was granted to the college in these words: 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 Cambridge and Boston.
Sherman Daily Democrat, July 2-August 6, There can be no doubt, that a compensation should be provided for in the same act which authorizes the appropriation of the property, or in a cotemporaneous act.
The ferry, with all its privileges was intended to be forever at an end, and a compensation in money was given in lieu of it. The corporation have regularly paid to the college the annual sum of two hundred pounds; and have performed all the duties imposed on them by the terms of their charter.
What relations do the words raise? If the interests of the complainants have been remotely injured by the The controversy over charles river bridge of other bridges, does that give a license to the defendants to inflict on them a more direct and greater injury?
This was a fair case for an equitable construction of the act The controversy over charles river bridge incorporation, and for an implied grant; if such a rule of construction could ever be permitted in a law of that description.
It was an exercise of the sovereign power of the state over certain public rights. Since the Charles River Bridge case, business corporations have successfully claimed other constitutional rights enjoyed by natural persons, including the right to equal protection of the law, the right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and most recently, the rights to freedom of speech and religion.
The right and obligations of the complainants must be ascertained by the construction of the act of The bridge of the complainants was substituted for the ferry; and it was designed to accommodate the course of travel between Boston and Charlestown. What, by necessary implication? None of the faculties or franchises granted to that corporation has been revoked by the Legislature, and its right to take the tolls granted by the charter remains unaltered.
And when a corporation alleges, that a state has surrendered for seventy years, its power of improvement and public accommodation, in a great and important line of travel, along which a vast number of its citizens must daily pass; the community have a right to insist, in the language of this Court above quoted, "that its abandonment ought not to be presumed, in a case, in which the deliberate purpose of the state to abandon it does not appear.
Much discussion has been had at the bar, as to the rule of construing a charter or grant, and many authorities have been referred to on this point. Can the Legislature be presumed to have taken upon themselves an implied obligation contrary to its own acts and declarations contained in the same law?
And when a corporation alleges that a State has surrendered, for seventy years, its power of improvement and public accommodation in a great and important line of travel, along which a vast number of its citizens must daily pass, the community have a right to insist, in the language of this Court, above quoted, "that its abandonment ought not to be presumed in a case in which the deliberate purpose of the State to abandon it does not appear.
The Supreme Court endorsed the chartering of the competing bridge, historians have said, because the new bridge challenged the monopoly power of the Charles River Bridge Company and promoted the expansion of commerce and enterprise.
The tolls were to be collected from the public, and it was intended that the expense of the annuity to Harvard College should be borne by the public, and it is manifest that it was so borne from the amount which it is admitted they received until the Warren Bridge was erected.
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 bridge was sufficient to accommodate the public; and it was, perhaps, believed that it would be sufficient, during the time limited in the charter.
Rearguing the case The case of Charles River Bridge v. Yet, as they only used one of the levels of the canal, and did not pass through the locks, and the statute, in giving the right to exact toll, had given it for articles which passed "through any one or more of the locks," and had said nothing as to toll for navigating one of the levels, the Court held that the right to demand toll in the latter case could not be implied, and that the company were not entitled to recover it.
There was no reason for such a conveyance; there was every reason against it, and the arrangements proposed by the charter to the bridge, could not have been carried into full effect, unless the rights of the ferry were entirely extinguished.
But it is contended, that in governmental grants, nothing is taken by implication. Not in the books, surely; nor can it be inferred from adjudged cases.The Red River Bridge controversy between Texas and Oklahoma (sometimes called the Red River War) occurred in July over the opening of a newly completed free bridge, built jointly by the two states, across the Red River between Denison, Texas, and Durant, Oklahoma.
Causing much confusion with visitors, the bridge that crosses the Charles River at MIT is called the Harvard Bridge. It was named after John Harvard for whom the small red brick college in Cambridge had earlier been named.
Charles River Bridge. The controversy over the Charles River Bridge dated as far back as October 15, when the Massachusetts legislature, in accordance with common law, assumed control over public mint-body.com legislature proceeded to give Harvard College the power to run a ferry on the Charles River between Boston and.
THE PROPRIETORS OF THE CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR v. influence their decision. And as they are conceded to be true, and the case has been argued on that ground, and the controversy has been for a long time depending, and all parties desire a final end of it; and as it is of importance to them, that the principles on.
The proprietors of the old bridge, the Charles River Bridge Company, sued, claiming that they had a monopoly right to passage over the Charles River. They lost. Historians have considered this controversy to be solely about the Supreme Court’s economic philosophy of market competition.
cxcxcxThe controversy over the Charles River Bridge dated as far back as October 15, when the Massachusetts legislature, in accordance with common law, assumed control over public ferries.Download