Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/393

 2Q2

THE GREEN BAG

selves authorized in the actual state of the proceedings, when only one party is form ally before the court (the time for answer not having arrived), to decide or even deliberate upon a question on all hands deemed to be of magnitude and importance."

and public sentiment created in their favor. This motion being denied, on June 15, the defendants claimed a right under the Con stitution to a trial by jury. In deciding this point, Judge Parker spoke of the limited time and opportunity given the court to Meanwhile, pending the decision, there consider it, as one of the obvious disad had been much speculation in the stock vantages of the method of administering of the Bridge Company. This was the equity; and said that the incessant engage period when the first railroad enterprises ments on the common law side of the court were being discussed, and plans for rail unfitted the judges to give the proper amount road charters made throughout the State. of attention to its equity cases. He held, It was foreseen that the final decision of this however, that no rights of the defendants case would be of vast effect upon the respec were infringed if the court .should decide tive rights of such railroads and of the old which facts, if any, were proper to be left and powerful turnpike corporations which, it to the jury. The defendants thereupon was then apparent, the railroads were likely waived the point, and in October, 1829. .o supplant. There was consequently im the case was argued on its merits by the same mense excitement over the question in all counsel as at the previous hearing. business and financial circles. This fact the Opinions were given in the case, January Chief Justice recognized, for he closed his 12, 1830 (7 Pick 344). The court divided opinion as he had begun, by giving "a cau evenly, two judges, — Chief Justice Isaac tion to the parties and to others interested Parker and Judge Samuel Putnam, denying in the question, to all who may wish to specu the constitutionality of the Statute; two late on the result for whose projects and schemes aje connected with the maintenance upholding it — Judge Samuel Sumner Wilde or overthrow of the bridge, that we consider and Judge Marcus Morton.1 the question of the validity of the grant and Judge Parker upheld fully the plaintiff's charter of the new bridge as open and un contention that the statute was an impair decided as it was before this motion was ment " of contract • and also a taking of made." property without compensation, saying: Before the Warren Bridge was in actual "I think this question of the necessity receipt of tolls, a supplemental bill was filed and later an amendment (the Warren Bridge of indemnifying the proprietors of the Charles River Bridge has been prejudiced by the well then being in receipt of tolls), claiming that known fact that the profits of the bridge the charter under which the Proprietors acted have been great beyond the example of was a violation of the contract of the State any similar institutions in this country. It with the Proprietors of the Charles River seems to me that if the legislature of 1787, Bridge, and was therefore repugnant to the which is one year after the building of the bridge, when its success could be only con Constitution of the United States, and claim jectural and the experiment of its durability ing further that it was a taking of property was scarcely tried, had incorporated this without compensation, and thus in violation company to build the Warren bridge with of the Massachusetts Constitution. On December 2, 1828, the defendants filed 1 Robert Rantoul, in his noted Fourth of July oration their answer, and both parties proceeded to at Scituate in 1836, spoke of the tendency among corpo take depositions. In June, 1829, the defend ration advocates to hold an "obnoxious statute uncon stitutional, as would have happened in the case of the ants asked for delay, claiming insufficient Warren Bridge, but for the firmness of Judge Morton." time to gather evidence, but in fact wishing See "Memoirs of Robert Rantoul, Jr.," by Luther delay until the bridge should be completed Hamilton (1854).