Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1848-03-17
The Free Bridge Case-Decision oil the u
.. supreme Court.

MANY of our readers are probably aware that
the case oftlIe West River Bridge Co. rs. Dix
and others, which had been carried to the U. 5.
Supreme Court by Writ of Error. from the de-
csion ofthc Supreme Court of Vermont, has re-
Gently been argued by Mr. WEBSTER and
Judge CoLLAMER for the Plaintiffs, and by Judge
PnELps for the defendants, in Error The WASH
ington correspondents of the New York papers
contained notices. at the time. of the case and
the arguments of the cmircnt counsel, but not
in shape to be ineligible either to ourselves or
our readers. We therefore RETAINED from copy
ing them with the purpose of obtaining, as early
as possible, an authentic abstract of the points
taken in the case, and the final judgment of the
exalted tribunal before which it was decided
We have great satisfaction, to day. in present.
ing such an abstract, and from source that
warrants lis in claiming for it entire accuracy.
The case is one of very considerable mpor-
lance, in this age of Railway progress and i'm
provement, as it establishes. on the highest Ju-
dicial authority known under the Constitution,
questions not unlikely TO occur hereafter. The
following is the abstract furnished to us:
The case OF the West River Bridge Co. rs. Dix
and Others recently decided by the Supreme Court of
the United States at Washington involves some very
important principles The questions discussed in the
argument derive peculiar interest at this time from
the circumstance that 50 many railroads now in
process of construction in various parts of the country
and i, is highly important to ascertain what powers
nnI
to what extent the powers thus conferred may be
ercscd
The controversy in this casc arose in this way: In
1885, corporation created by the Legislature OF
Vermont, by the name of the West River Bridge Co.
upon which was conferred the exclusive privilege OF
maintaining toll bridge across West river within
four miles OF its mouth, with the right of exactlng GER
ton specified tolls from passengers. The corporation
was by its charter TO endure for hundred years
The company proceeded, shortly after the grant, tc
their bridge, and have continued to ENJOY their
franchise down to the period oins,i,uting the proceed
ngs in question In 1912, petition was filed in the
County Court Tor the County OF Windham, praying
among other things for free road across the bridge
and the abolition OF the tolls. Such proceedings were
had upon this application as resulted in making the
bridge free. The cour, proceeded under Statute Of
Vermont passed. believe in 1889. which authorize:
the taking the property OF turnpike or other smlla
corporation, and provides further that in such case
The uhoic franchise shall be taken and paid for.
The decree of the court, following the direction o
the statute, consisted OF two parts. First tcstabshct
a public and free highway across the bridge and sec
ondiy it abolished the entire franchise. At the sam,
time the whole property OF the corporation including
the franchise was appraised, and the appraised vau,
drcrecd to be paid.
The case was carried 10 the Supreme Court o
, Vermont, who affirmed the decree OF the Count,
, Court upon which Writ of Error was brought II
the Supreme Court Of the United States
The case was argued, two years ago, by MIR. Web
ster and Judge Conmer for the plaintiffs in crror AM
Judge Phelps for the defendants in error and agaiI
this winter by the same counsel.
In behalf Of the plaintiffs in error it urged, tina
the act of 1889 and she proceedings under it,
constitutional and void, they directly impaired tn
obligation OF the grant OF 1875; and were therefore
prohibited by the Constitution of the United States !;
that the proceeding established new highway, bu
merely abolished the tolls, and justified by II,
sufficient necessity that it was abuse OF the pow
er of Eminent Domain. And further, that the plain
tfs' franchise could not be taken from them, exccp
upon process instituted against them for that pur
pose and that if public necessity demanded the lay
ing OF the free road yet the plaintiffs franchise coul,
be made TO yield only so far as that necessity went
leaving the franchise in existence subject that quail
ilca,ion restriction
On the part of the defendants in it insist
ed that all property is held subject TO the right OF tn
government to apply it to public use in proper case
and for proper objects that distinction can b
4 made between franchises and Other property tina
such appropriation Of private property, upon due com
Il pcnsalion, was perfectly consistent with the orginu
grant of such properly by the statc.as the proper
is TAKEN not in derogaon Of the ors ina grant, but b.
virtue OF reserved power Of re-purchase and that
different doctrine, which would make such proceed
ing impair the obligation OF the grant, would at ono
abrogate essential and indispensable power, tina
not highway OF any kind could be legally establish
ed
And further, that the obec, being public highway
was legitimate one, and the degree of necessity 10
the exercise OF the power in this a matter
which the State Courts were the constitutional udges
: and in regard to which their Judgment was conclu
d siye,
As to the other point it urged that whether tina
part oftle decree which abroga,cd the entire fran
elise stood not, altogether unimportant to tn
= defendants in error All they desired was the estab
shment Of their road and if any thing then remain
- ed OF the franchise which the plaintiffs might enjoy
a u
lfthat portion OF the decree was void because not in
volvcd in, required for, the purpose OF the publ
y road, it might be so declared without disturbing tn
:, highway. And farther it was urged, that ahoug
C there might be where the franchise might sub
sist to valuable and practical purposes Gas in the cas-
OF the Boston Water Power CO. RS Worcester Rail
, road Co, reported III Pickerng) yet in this case tn
= interference with the franchise destroyed its value to
tally, and therefore II was very properly appraised
ordered to be paid tor in full As this was the neccs
{ sary and unavoidable consequence of establishing tn
road, and, as full compensation made the plain
If tiiis for the whole property no injustice done
i declaring the franchise extinct
- The Courl affirmed The decree of the Supreme Cou
of Vermont in tofo Judge DANIEL delivered the opir
= ion OF the Court and Judges Mclean and Wool
bury delivered separate opinions concurrng in the
l. suit but qualifying in respect the doctrines a,
u vanccd. Judge WAYNE alone dlssented but did N
give his reasons for OF time. They will howe,
y er, appear in the Report.
'e The general doctrines of the decision, unde
L. stood 10 be these That the provision Of the Consl
r tuition Of the United States, which prohibits the pas
TO ing Of any law npairing the obligation Of contract
so does not conflict with the power Of Eminent Domai
when exercised for objects of public necessity, such
~ roads and bridges tina, franchises like the one
ne question, created by special Legislation, stand upc
e. the footing OF oherproperiy, and must yield to publ
III necessityso far however, and far only ms that
10 cessity that the franchise can subsst consis
III, Al. .l,l,