Proprietors of the Charles River Bridge v. the Proprietors of the Warren Bridge

Charles River was reargued 19-26 January 1837, with just seven justices seated. By then, the Warren Bridge was open for free, and the Charles River Bridge was out of business. But the issues raised by the case were still important. Webster argued that the original charter had implied an exclusive right for his client to control the bridge traffic between Boston and Charlestown. The Court voted 4-3 to reject this claim.

Chief Justice Taney dismissed Webster's argument of any implied powers granted by the 1785 charter, and wrote that the government had a legitimate interest in guaranteeing the public had convenient means of transportation. The people, through its elected officials, granted the charter, and "in grants by the public, nothing passes by implication." The state was obliged to uphold the terms outlined in the charter, but the company could not infer any privileges not specifically granted. The charter said nothing about competing bridges.

Taney's decision reflected his belief in states' rights and the need, at times, to limit property rights or business interests. He wrote:

. . . 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 . . . While the rights of private property are sacredly guarded, we must not forget the that the community also have rights, and that the happiness and well being of every citizen depends on their faithful preservation.

The three dissenting justices--McLean, Story, and Thompson--each wrote separate opinions. Story's is the most often cited. He did see in the grant an exclusive right for the Charles River Company to collect tolls over the river. He also thought courts should, in general, broadly interpret a company's rights as granted by a public contract. Story said the majority's decision would send a frightening signal to the grantee of a public charter; once the company was successful, the state could "overthrow its rights and . . . take away its profits."

Today, most legal scholars accept Taney's decision, and many of his later opinions supporting property and business interests. But in Charles River, says legal historian James Ely, Taney saw that "existing property rights could sometimes be destroyed to make room for innovations and improvements."