Justice Joseph Story (dissenting): “No man will hazard his capital in any enterprise, in which, if there be a loss, it must be borne exclusively by himself; and if there be success, he has not the slightest security of enjoying the rewards of that success, for a single moment. If the government means to invite its citizens to enlarge the public comforts and conveniences, to establish bridges, or turnpikes, or canals, or railroads, there must be some pledge, that the property will be safe; that the enjoyment will be co-extensive with the grant; and that success will not be the signal of a general combination to overthrow its rights and to take away its profits. The very agitation of a question of this sort is sufficient to alarm every stockholder in every public enterprise of this sort, throughout the whole country.”
The Charles River Bridge Company sued, seeking an injunction to prevent the building of a new bridge by the Warren Bridge Company. The Charles River Bridge Company argued that the state legislature violated the Contract Clause by impairing the original contract it had with the state. However, the Warren Bridge Company countered that the important public interests at stake trumped whatever private property rights Charles River Bridge had. The majority of the Court was concerned that if the monopoly was upheld, then improvements in transportation that would benefit the public at large could only take place at the whim of the private property owner.
The Taney Court ruled 4–3 in favor of the new bridge and the Warren Bridge Company. Chief Justice Taney reasoned that exclusive grants must be construed narrowly and must take into account the underlying public interests. “In charters of this description, no rights are taken from the public, or given to the corporation, beyond those which the words of the charter, by their natural and proper construction, purport to convey.”
What was the significance of the bridge-builders decision?
The chief importance of the decision was that the Supreme Court was now considering the public interest as paramount when reviewing Contract Clause claims. The Court established that the state government has a police power to pass legislation that furthers the interests of the public. Some allege the decision actually helped business by promoting competition and innovation.
Who were the attorneys who argued the case?
The case was argued by some of the country’s finest lawyers. Daniel Webster argued on behalf of the Charles River Bridge Company, while Simon Greenleaf and John Davis represented the Warren Bridge Company.
What other Taney Court decision involved the height of a bridge?
The Taney Court ruled 7–2 in Pennsylvania v. Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Co. (1852) that the state of Pennsylvania had a valid claim against a company’s bridge that was built so low that it negatively impacted interstate commerce. The Virginia legislature chartered the company to build the Wheeling Bridge across the Ohio River into Pennsylvania. The Court ruled that it impeded interstate commerce and ordered the bridge either removed or raised.
What happened to the bridge?
Congress did not agree with the Court’s decision and subsequently passed a federal law mandating that the original height of the bridge was proper. The law read: “That the bridges across the Ohio River at Wheeling, in the State of Virginia, and at Bridgeport, in the State of Ohio, abutting on Zane’s Island, in said river, are hereby declared to be lawful structures in their present positions and elevations, and shall be so held and taken to be any thing in the law or laws of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding.” It was the first time that Congress had legislatively overruled a Supreme Court decision. The case went back up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled the bridge did not impede interstate commerce.
In what decision did the Taney Court say that a corporation has diversity jurisdiction?
The Taney Court ruled unanimously in Louisville Railroad Co. v. Letson (1844) that a New York citizen could sue in federal court a railroad corporation that was chartered in South Carolina because the federal court had diversity jurisdiction, which permits a federal court to entertain suits between parties (litigants) from different states. The Court determined that the railroad company was deemed to be a citizen in the state in which it was chartered. The decision made it easier for corporations to sue and be sued in the federal courts.
Civil War critic and former U.S. representative Clement Vallandigham is arrested in his Dayton, Ohio, home on May 5, 1863, for declaring sympathy for the enemy. In Ex Parte Vallandigham, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it could not review a military court decision. Hulton Archive/Getty Images.
What were the License Cases?
The License Cases were a trio of cases—Thurlow v. Massachusetts, Fletcher v. Rhode Island, and Peirce v. New Hampshire—in which the Taney Court unanimously upheld state laws that taxed alcoholic beverages imported into the state. The laws were designed to favor local retailers. The local retailers convinced the state legislatures that they needed an advantage over out-of-state merchants. Individuals who sold out-of-state beverages without a license challenged the constitutionality of the state laws, arguing that the laws infringed on the federal government’s control of interstate commerce. Instead, the justices determined that the statutes were justified by the state’s police powers. “Every State … may regulate its own internal traffic, according to its own judgment and upon its own views of the interest and well-being of its citizens,” Chief Justice Taney wrote.
In what case did the Taney Court rule it could not review a military court decision?
The Taney Court ruled that it could not conduct a habeas corpus review of the military trial of outspoken Civil War critic and former U.S. representative Clement Vallandigham of Ohio in Ex Parte Vallandigham (1864). In the spring of 1863, General Ambrose Burnside, without consulting President Abraham Lincoln, had arrested Vallandigham for publicly expressing sympathies for the enemy. At a speech in Mount Vernon, Ohio, Vallandigham said that “the present war was a wicked, cruel, and unnecessary war, one not waged for the preservation of the Union, but for the purpose of crushing out liberty and to erect a despotism.”
Fort Sumter flies under a Confederate flag on April 4, 1861. President Abraham Lincoln issued an order to block Confederate ports despite the lack of a formal declaration of war by Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in The Prize Cases that the president had the constitutional authority to do that. Hulton Archive/Getty Images.
In May 1863, military officials tried and convicted Vallandigham. Instead of throwing him in jail, President Lincoln ordered him moved to Murfreesboro, Tennessee, in the Confederacy. Vallandigham appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court; it ruled in February 1864 that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain a review of the military court ruling. “The Supreme Court of the United States has no power to review by certiorari the proceedings of a military commission ordered by a general officer of the United States Army, commanding a military department,” Justice James Wayne wrote for the Court.
What happened to Vallandigham after his banishment to the South?
The Confederates treated him well; he wound up in Bermuda, then sailed to Canada. Having been nominated in July 1863 for governor of Ohio, he ran in absentia but lost. He returned to Ohio in 1864 where many cheered
