Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1864-02-11

although may inferred that then the policy n
ef notes at that yet there nothing which
be fairly construed contract the part of the state
the policy afterwards ohbt their Issue
and c costior There in pledge to this effect There
are no woEds a ann a he made to inn
Div Contract the part of the Legislature, that it will
the 81 s any sl and circulation Of small notes.
la 1850 tie legislature OF Haesachueets granted to Har
va ys'a or rom to Bost pass
ing over River Under ia grant, the College con-
tnd t. hold the Ferry ts lesses and receive the
its uGt 1856 hen the Legislature incorporated com
pany to build bridge Charles River where the Ferry
ap ns p eo1 ns during the Charter
forty ears, which wards exendSd 10 seventy
years he bridge built under this chafler ana the
lived the tos, always keeping ne ologe
ed all mt was e asf gn
for the erection ano' her BRIDGE the war; oYe
b,dae &c mmenoed aid erninatirg Boston SEQ
feet from termination of the Charles River brdge Trey
become free. Travellers Who formerly passed over the
Charles River bridge. now pass over the arlen p1 ~
and thus River bridge Co. are deprlVed OF me
!os ee W Id otherwise received. The value Of the
granted b. the act OF 1875 is &c" enfey oeS
TINS case The Charles River Bridge vs. the Warren
Bridge Ii Peters 40, was argued seiefe me m
Webster for the PIT. and Mr.. Gteenleat fer the Ds
Mr. Webster insisted upon two points 49, Ina Dy me
ant Of Harvard Co lege entitled IN perpetuy 10
the right to keep terry between Georgeo~n ana session
that TIE gh; rss sx osVs aDa the us z ave
because it would infringe the OF me Coege ad moss
OF
Construction OF TIE acts of the L. gsa'nse p
sets granting the privilege to build bridge necesoarly
bsdge and especially one by the SIDE fhe Charles
River bridge. that franchise which they held VIC MD
FERRY College, and the grant of the right pontage
propretos of the Charles River bridge is contract
which is impaired by the law auhoriz the erectoh OF
SAYS The couIset for the Defendans have aid
Plaintiffs have sustained loss out that OF their
golden prospects They have lost all their propstY;a
properly orth three hundred thousand dvars before The
bridge
The rights of the plaintiffs MONOPOLY They are the
10. of the property for which hay had pa in ad
vaIce ana which by contract, made by tie ia" they
entitled to epjoy for twenty years to come They
property have taken them hase taken
question whether the CONSTITUTION OF the United
been violated There other issue made On this re-
Of improvements, they stay revolution, revo
luton The foundations which properly ress
revolution which attempted on the aegatlon OF monopo
the csmor against legislative acts which have
vested rights in individuals principles CT eqna u TO
visions of the law. The eieco OF tie bridge wes au IN
dertakiDg great hszad and the result the effort
Construct it was considered exceeding doubtful. 1t
not therefore, be supposed that the franchise was To De
dmni he'd and its joyment to be limited Nothing vi
this expressed and nothing unreasonable Can be In
Piled"
says This of incorporation is in tie ual form
the privileges such commonly given 10 oratonS
kind confers them the Ordinary faculties OF
corr Grafton for purpose building BRIDGE and
establishes rates OF toll which tie Company au
therizsd to take This is the whole grant There IS no
1clusiue priUlege guen to them the aouS Of Charles
R,ye obooe or 1el0'o The bridge 40 rght 10 e1sct ano
bridge themselves nor opreoet other persons from erec
ting 40 enqdsen e from the State that another shall
be erected and undertaking not to Sdntton compete
ton, to make 'nproUenets that may d'n'enSh me
amount of their income. On all these SUBJECTS he thGTer
s aarded m shS nss og hs s
have rights and that the happiness and well beng every
citizen depends on their faithful preserVatl2n Ii Is very
clear, thai in he form in which tn comes beioss U.s.
berg writ OF error to State Court the PLAIN ms 10
Mr. Webster must place themselves the grou2d CT CON
tract HLd cannot support themselves upon the Prcpia
fta HUpcf F1ht ne
decs.ns of this Court that state law may be retrospect
o e t the a tn. uned
also mparts the obligation of contract In Peters, ALB,
state then before Interpreting Article in
the Constitution of the United Stsses which totds the
state laws inparng the obligation OF CONTRACTS
be rerospective be So But retrospective laws which
the of post tacto laws not condemned
,h BY any part Of that int tranent (he oonsu
the Court say the o c'iou however, pressed up
the Court was. that the effect of his dvest
rights which vested by law in Sater!ee There
certainly part OF the constitution OF the u s. which APP
plies to State law of this descrption Awa1e
OF any decision OF this or of any other Court which has
condemned such law this ground divided its effect
he not to impair the obligation Of contract; The same
principles were re- affirmed in this courts in the late case
OF WATSON vs. Eercer de side in 1884 Pet llO " AS TO
tie frs. point Gay the cout it is clear that this court
void to the Constitution of the U. from
The Constitution Of the 0. s. does prohibit States
from pasa1g retrospective laws generality but only &c
to promote happiness ard prosperity OF tie community
by which it is established and lever be assumed,
that tAe COVER INTENDED to diminish a power
comprising IL d for which it created 4 State
ought never he presumed to surrender this power, be
cause bike taxing power, the whole community have
al interest resetying it undimnished The continued
existence ct would be OF no great value, fby
Implications aud Representations it disarned of
necessary accomplish the ends of its creations
AID he function il designed to perform transferred to
The hands of privileged Corporations"
| Here is a much stronger from own Supreme
Court In Mckee Wilmington and Raleigh r. r. Co.,
Jones of in
der whom the plaintiff regularly claimed authorized to
erect and keep tell bridge the North East Branch
of the Cape Fear, and expressly provided in the
charter that i! shall not be lau for any person uhai
ere' TO Eeep dnytrry bd any bridge, set any person
or PERSONS carriage or carriages cattle, hogs sheep
the same, etnder penalty of troenty Sttngs each and
eUery oten3e The bridge was cree ed within the tine
prescribed and kept up toll bridge. Here is an " e1
elusive privilege given to them the waters of the
Ah ard below the bridge. Here the right erect
br'de aud " o prevent other persons rorl erecting
one within tie lint. Here IAN engage ut from The
state that mother shall Lot be erected Aud here IAN
d"rtas ug lot to s!octitn compe ton any thing
ele h ~ ~ diminish the amount OF their income -
"uB al these subjects the charter is express The Raj
road Company by virtue OF its charter granted in 1889
erected brdge as part Of the Railroad, the Eorh
East Branch OF the Cape Fear whio six he bridge
site Ct TIRE n htf Judge Pearson teliVcEirg the op
lag OF the parties, and of course scope operation
the contac nhed to the ferries bridges and other
modes Of setting and property the river
that time known and in use Or the meaning of
parties and was it in their contemplation confer upon
Heron his heirs and assigns perpetual monopoly OF
setting persons and property river by means
his bridge that yer thereafter be 10 the pow
er CT The Governor Council and Assembly. matter esat
r1,gt De the change an the condition Of things either
across the river, the improved modes of trans
portaoa to au hoIiz' any other mode of crossing the
We e.. shoad besltas ong before bringing
stuGlln OF the contract it able