The Massachusetts spy, and Worcester County advertiser. [volume] ([Worcester, Mass.]) 1825-1831, 1827-03-14

by diversion of some portion of the travel,
as we'll as for the encouragement of enterprise,
in an express enactment, extending their char
ter to serenity years, subject TO all the condi-
tions and regulations prescribed in the origin
al act, and with authority, during the atore-
SAID term Of seUenty gears, to continue 10 col
iect and receire all The tolls, granted By he a.
foreSdid act, for heir use and benefr'-protid-
ed, s. they also pay annually 10 said Harvard
College the sum Of tOO hundred pounds, and
observe the aforesaid regulations and condi-
tions." In the sixth section it is enacted that,
in consideration of the privileges in this act
granted to the Proprietors Of Charles River
Bridge, the said Proprietors shall relinquish
the additional toll on the Lords day, from
and after the passing Of the act.
BY Statute passed in the same year, 1892,
the Charter granted to the Proprietors OF
West-BO Bridge was extended TO serenity
years, and the annuity TO Harvard College
changed from three hundred pounds for forty
years, to f'o0 hundred pounds Tor the whole
term.
Subsequently, in the year 1906, another
Corporation was created by the name Of the
Canal Bridge, with authority to construct a
Bridge over Charles River, from Boston TO
Cambridge, between the two first aioremen-
toned Bridges, with spur or cross Bridge to
point in ChdrleSiOlCn, remote from Charles
River Bridge. The obligations to maintain
these Bridges in repair, to keep them suitably
lighted by lamps, and maintain and provide
draws for the passage OF vessels, and TO pay
to the PrOprietoTs of West-Boston Bridge the
sum of three hundred and thirty three dol
lars and hirty-three cents, for each and erery
gear that sad Corporations shall eTiSt, were
~ al ~ a
the continuance of the charter was limited to
serenity years, and the Charter of West Boston
Bridge was extended. Thus three Bridges
have been authorized by grants of the Legis-
ature over Charles River between different
points from Boston to Charlestown and Cam
bridge, and, by the papers accompanying the
bill, the fact distinctly appears, and indeed is
otherwise notorious, that they have been con-
structed and now exist, and are improved as
passage ways for the public, and for the col
lection of tolls by their respective Projectors.
II was necessary to give this brief history Of
legislation on the subject, for the right under
standing of the objections which have to Of
fer to the Bill before me. The mere expedi-
ency IF further accommodation for intercourse
between the city and country, by the way Of
Charlestown, is exclusively with The lesisla-
ture TO consider, nor should | attempt revi-
sion of their opinions on this question, if it
were competent for me so to do. For all the
purposes of legislation they would judge con-
clusively on this point, and, as | apprehend
such Judgment has been already made, it will
be taken TO be correct, while con6ne myself
more appropriately to objections Of quite
different character TO the passage of the Bill.
The protection,o private property, and the
inviolabillty of the faith of the Government
are eDjoined by the very letter and enforced
by every principle of the Consti ution. No
fundamental rule is more absolute, than that.
which restrains the Legislature from the en-
aCtment of laws, VIII cb impair the force OF con-
tracts. The authority TO construct the propo-
sed Bridge, it is apprehended, would have
this eff, Ct The erection Of the Bridge would
with entire certainty destroy the value Of
Charles River Bridge, or in other words, If
would efec:ually and totally annihilate the
property oil the ProprIetors in the franchise 81
the Corporation. "A free Bridge near 10 a
toll Br dye, an The same direction. and of nG
greater distance from p0snt 10 point If fraU
Ell, accommodating precisely The same hGvei
could not but exclusively and always be pre-
ferred, and while the former would be univer-
sally improved, the latter must altogether be
avoided. 1t admits not OF doubt, in the pres
ent case, that the appTehensIons Of the Re-
monstrants would be realized, and thai from
the NOM, Mt the proposed Bridge should be o.
pened, not an individual would be found to pay
at the toll-houses of the existing Corporation
The effect therefore, is TO defeat the intended
benefit OF former grant of the Legislature
II such would be the operation OF the propo.
sed Bill, it would be imperative as an author
ity to the Petitioners, and its enactment wholly
unadvised
The original act of incorporation of the
Proprietors OF Charles River Bridge contained
an cypress Terms, grant Of toll for forty
years. The subsequent act OF 1892 extended
this grant to SeVeRty years, yet unexpired.--
The charterhas never been judicially vacated
but is still in legal force. The incorporation
was in the nature of compact between the
Government and the Proprietors. Each party
was bound by it. The Corporation, it they
constructed the Bridge, were afterwards TO
maintain it, 10 light it, to provide and tend the
draw, and were moreover pledged TO the pay
ment of an annuity of tcO hundred pounds.
If they omitted the performance of any oi
these duties, they forfeited their charter; il
they neglected some of them, they were fur
Their liable to iorieltures and penalties, at the
suit OF the public, or Of injured parties
l he right to tol! was the only consideration
secured to them, and this the Legislature must
originally have intended they should receive.
1t became, upon compliance with the condi-
tions, vested right upon an executed con-
sideratIon. The Bridge was made, and the
duties enJoined upon the Corporation attached,
and could oe enforced. The Proprietors had
parted with their money in the work, the fruits
OF which were to be received only in the pay
ment of tolls. Without this, the funds were
lost, and the property in the Bridge became
valueless. Could the Government revoke the
grant3 This will not be pretended The right
to enjoy it for serenity years was absolute
The words in the act OF 1885 are I" a toll be
and is hereby granted and established for the
sole benefit of said Projectors" and in the
subsequent act of 1892, :" the said Propretors
shall and may continue to collect and receive
all the toll during the time aforesaid" No
! ~ - TT