Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/391

 2QO

THE GREEN BAG

expressed, through a committee consisting of Warren Button, Richard Sullivan, and Peter C. Brooks, their willingness to reduce tolls, and stated that "We can discern nothing in the facts or the law of the case or in the present state of public opinion, which should impair their confidence or discourage their hopes. They rely with confidence on the intelligence, wisdom and good faith of the Government for a reasonable protection. "At the same time they are ready to admit that they are desirous of being re lieved from the very great burden of making a defence before successive committees of the Legislature, or ultimately, if it should become necessary, which they do not believe, before other tribunals." By this time, however, the new bridge party in the Legislature was in no mood to accept any offers, however generous. or adequate to meet the public needs. The fight had now become one of the country against the city — the country members insisting on the right of their constituents to enter Boston without pay ment of toll; the city members, having a large financial and commercial constituency, insisting that the State should keep faith and observe its solemn contract. There was also prevalent in the State at this time, a very violent anti-corporation feeling, and the Charles River Bridge corporation was held up as the shining example of a grasping monopoly.1 The joint committee reported in favor of the bill, which was ordered to a first reading in the House, February 5, 1828, by a large majority. The Charles River Bridge Proprietors were now thoroughly alarmed; and they again, by vote of February 25, 1828, offered to 1 The Free Bridge question had become a political issue to such an extent that in the state election of 1827, in April, a candidate was put into the field in opposition to Gov. Levi Lincoln, who based his campaign on this issue — William C. Jarvis, Speaker of the House of Representatives. Owing to Lincoln's personal popu larity, Jarvis only received 7130 votes to 29029 for Lincoln.

alter their present bridge, and even to build a new bridge in any manner the Legislature might desire, stating that they made "an earnest appeal to the enlightened wisdom of the Legislature to decide whether the Public Good or Public Policy, without reference to the equity, justice, or legality of such a measure, can require the absolute sacrifice of the great amount of property which they have innocently purchased, and now hold upon the faith of the government." The Legislature paid no attention to the offer, and on March 12, 1828, the bill passed, granting a charter to the Proprietors of Warren Bridge, with a right to take toll until the cost of construction with 5 per cent interest should be reimbursed, the bridge to then revert to the State and to become a free bridge, the term of toll, however, not to exceed six years, and until the reversion of the bridge, the Proprietors to pay onehalf of the annuity of $666.66 required to be paid to the College by the Charles River Bridge, the latter being relieved from pay ing this one-half. (See c 127 of the acts of 1827). Before the bill was signed by the Governor a protest was filed in the House on March n, 1828, signed by 70 members, among whom were the following prominent lawyers: — Rufus Choate, Emory Washburn, Leverett Saltonstall, Asahel Huntingdon, Joseph Willard — and also noted men like Horace Mann and James Savage.1 Construction of this new bridge was at 1 The protest was based on the following grounds — First, because neither the public convenience nor necessity require it. Second, because evidence of amount of tolls was one of ingredients of public conveniences and necessity on which the committee founded this report. Third, the granting of another bridge so near as to essentially injure value of property without providing any indemnity, is a violation of existing right, a breach of public faith, and tends to diminish the confidence in and lessen the security of the right of property. Fourth, because the Legislature have no right to obstruct an important navigable river by another bridge when the same is not required by public convenience and necessity, "apart. from any consideration of tolls."