The questions involved in this case are of the gravest character, and the Court have given to them the most anxious and deliberate consideration. The value of the right claimed by the plaintiffs is large in amount, and many persons may, no doubt, be seriously affected in their pecuniary interests by any decision which the Court may pronounce; and the questions which have been raised as to the power of the several States in relation to the corporations they have chartered are pregnant with important consequences, not only to the individuals who are concerned in the corporate franchises, but to the communities in which they exist.
Warren Bridge, 36 U. The case settled a dispute over the constitutional clause regarding obligation of contract. 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 Taney's tenure as Chief Justice. The controversy over the Charles River Bridge dated as far back as October 17, 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 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. 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. Inthe 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. 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.
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.
Ina company was given the rights to build the Warren Bridge, which would be extraordinarily close to the Charles River Bridge.The controversy over the Charles River Bridge dated as far back as October 17, 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. The Controversy over Charles River Bridge Essay 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.
The Leonard P. Zakim (/ ˈ z eɪ k ə m /) Bunker Hill Memorial Bridge (or Zakim Bridge) is a cable-stayed bridge across the Charles River in Boston, Massachusetts.
It is a replacement for the Charlestown High Bridge, an older truss bridge constructed in the s. Representing the proprietors of the Charles River Bridge Company, Daniel Webster argued that its charter gave the company exclusive rights to build a bridge over the river and that protection of the company's investment was the major issue.
APUSH Chpt 8/9. STUDY.
PLAY. In , Henry Clay sought to use the debate over the Bank of the United States primarily to. The Supreme Court ruling in Charles River Bridge Company v. Warren bridge Company () reflected the Jacksonian ideas of democracy and economic opportunity.
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.