Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/396

 THE CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE CASE his opinion, but that he would send it soon, and he continued: "I wish to make some remarks to explain the great length and the repetition of the same suggestions in different parts of the same opinion. I have written my opinion in the hope of meeting the doubts of some of the brethren, which are various and apply to different aspects of the case. To accom plish my object, I felt compelled to deal with each argument separately and answer it in every form, since the objections of one mind were different from those of another. One of the most formidable objections is the rule that royal grants, etc., are to be strictly construed; another is against implications in legislative grants; another is against monopolies; another is that franchises of this sort are bounded by local limits; another, that the construction contended for will bar all public improvements. I have been com pelled, therefore, to restate the arguments in different connections. I have done so, hoping in this way to gain allies. I should otherwise have compressed my opinion within half the limits." The opinion thus referred to became the dissenting opinon delivered by Judge Story, when the case was finally decided six years later. A long delay now ensued, owing to illness and death of several members of the court, and to the discinclination of the court to hear or decide so important a case involving a state statute, unless the full court should be present. By January, 1832,- the court had come to no conclusion; and owing to the illness of Judge Johnson, the case was again held under advisement until the January term of 1833, when, on February 26, 1833, it was ordered for re-argument. Owing to the illness of Judge Baldwin, no argument was had at that term. In 1834, Judge Johnson died, and Judge Duvall was ill. During the next year, 1835, came the death of Chief Justice Marshall and the resignation of Judge Duvall.1 1 In Massachusetts, Lieutenant-Governor S. T. Arm strong sent the following special message to the legisla ture, March 20, 1835: "It appears that at the term of the court which has

295

Meanwhile William Wirt, then one of the leaders of the United States Bar and chief counsel for the Warren Bridge had died on February 14, 1834; and after much con sideration, the Proprietors decided to retain in Wirt's place Simon Greenleaf, then Royall Professor in the Harvard Law School. Although Greenleaf as counsel in this case would be obliged to act in a capacity adverse to Harvard College, no question seems to have been raised by the College as to the propriety of his action. The only official reference to the case is to be found in the following letter now in the Harvard Archives and in an ensuing vote of the Harvard Corporation. Greenleaf writes ' to the Corporation, November 27, 1834. "Having been requested to argue a cause before the Supreme Court at Washington some time in the ensuing winter I deem this a proper occasion respectfully to ask whether in your opinion the statutes of the Law Department militate with the practice of law by the Royall Professor, and if not entirely so then to what extent you should consider him at liberty to accept professional engagements; or by what rule is he to govern himself in such cases. I have hither to followed the course I understand to have been pursued by my predecessor, accepting only such engagements as I thought would not injuriously interfere with the duties of the Professorship; but the present appli cation inviting me beyond the limits of any former precedent, I feel some difficulty in deciding how to dispose of it. I would request the favor of your opinion as early as convenient, it being for the interest of all parties that no time be lost in preparing the cause." just closed, there being a vacancy on the bench, the cause was again continued and now stands for argument at the next term in January, 1836; and that it is under stood that the Supreme Court of the United States will not usually hear a cause involving the validity of a state law unless all the Judges by law to be appointed are commissioned and present on the Bench; so that it is not to be expected that this cause will be again argued without a full court." 1 See Harv. Coll. Papers, id Series, Vol. vi.