The controversy over charles river bridge

The combination of presidential pressure and the announcement by the court of appeals changed minds. In the opinion of a learned judge in the court below, we are told, that if the king makes a grant of lands, and the mines therein contained, royal mines shall not pass: But it is said that any check to the exercise of this discretion by the legislature, will operate against the advance of improvements.

It appears by the ancient charters, that The controversy over charles river bridge college was incorporated in May 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.

The amount of the tolls, it must be presumed, was graduated with a view to this incumbrance, as well as to every other expenditure to which the company might be subjected under the provisions of their charter.

The Charles River Bridge Case

But the object and end of all government is to promote the happiness and prosperity of the community by which it is established; and it can never be assumed, that the government intended to diminish its power of accomplishing the end for which it was created. The plaintiffs in error insist, mainly, upon two grounds: Neither can the extent of the pre-existing ferry right, whatever it may have been, have any influence upon the construction of the written charter for the bridge.

Goering Has two but they are small. But upon what ground can the plaintiffs in error contend that the ferry rights of the college have been transferred to the proprietors of the bridge?

The wrong complained of, consists in the construction of a new bridge, over the same river; under a recent act of the legislature, within a few rods of the old one, and which takes away the entire profits of the old bridge. Inthe general court say, "that the ferry is granted to the college.

Now, as all the roads leading into and from Charlestown, terminate, or cross each other, in this square, it follows, that all the travel which now goes over the Warren bridge would, with equal convenience, have gone over Charles River bridge, if that had been the only avenue between Boston and Charlestown.

These considerations belong to the case, as it arises under the laws and constitution of Massachusetts. The travellers who pass over either bridge, proceed from Charlestown square, which receives the travel of many great public roads, leading from the country; and the passengers and travellers who go to and from Boston, used to pass over the Charles river bridge, from and through this square, before the erection of the Warren bridge.

The Warren Bridge lawyers also argued on the basis of eminent domainwhich enables federal and state governments to take private property for public use as long as it provides the owner with compensation.

By repeated acts of legislation in the different states, during that eventful period, the obligation of contracts was impaired. The rule of construction before stated is an answer to the question: Nixon was elected president of the United States in November and took office in January But if the act of were subjected to the strictest rules applicable to crown grants, it would be entitled to a liberal construction for the grantees; for it is upon a good, a valid, an adequate, and a meritorious consideration.

The charter of and its extension in It confers on them the ordinary faculties of a corporation for the purpose of building the bridge, and establishes certain rates of toll which the company are authorized to take; this is the whole grant. The only contract made by the state, is the grant to John Cornelius, his heirs and assigns, of the land in question.

It is well settled by the decisions of this Court that a State law may be retrospective in its character, and may divest vested rights and yet not violate the Constitution of the United States unless it also impairs the obligation of a contract.

Is it to be found in the charter? There is, then, no restraint or limitation upon the power of the grantor over the subject-matter of this grant; none in the constitution of Massachusetts; none in the act itself, that interferes with the possession of an exclusive right by grantees.

The answer to the supplemental bill admitted that the bridge had been so far completed, that foot passengers could pass, but denied that any persons but the workmen and superintendents had passed over, with their consent.

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.

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? The plaintiffs in error insist, mainly, upon two grounds: It pitted an older, traditional view of the corporation as a creature of the state, beholden to the public interest, against a newer vision of the corporation as a private, profit-making entity.

The Controversy over Charles River Bridge

And in delivering the opinion of the Court, the late chief justice states the principle, in the following clear and emphatic language. The corporation have regularly paid to the college the annual sum of two hundred pounds, and have performed all of the duties imposed on them by the terms of their charter.

If a ferry be erected with license, another cannot erect a ferry to the nuisance of it. Do not past receipts and increased intercourse, afford a rule by which future receipts may be estimated?

Afterwards, a supplemental bill was filed stating that the bridge had then been so far [p] completed that it had been opened for travel, and that divers persons had passed over and thus avoided the payment of the toll which would otherwise have been received by the plaintiffs.

Inthe charter was extended to seventy years from the opening of the bridge, and at the expiration of that time, it was to belong to the commonwealth.The controversy over the bridge's name began in when MIT opened its Cambridge campus. When the Harvard Bridge was closed for renovations in, andproposals were submitted to rename the bridge for MIT.

Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Memorial Bridge

His first epic was his twelfth film: The Bridge on the River Kwai, starring Alec Guinness and William Holden as P.O.W.'s working to build and/or destroy a bridge for the Japanese during World War. 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. 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. 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 Three Sisters Bridge was a planned bridge over the Potomac River in Washington, D.C., with piers on the Three Sisters islets. Envisioned in the s and formally proposed in the s, it was cancelled amid protests in the s.

The controversy over charles river bridge
Rated 3/5 based on 96 review