THE CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE CASE the College books showing the letting of the ferry by the College. During the 18th century, the ferry was not a great source of revenue, owing to the cost of maintenance. Between 1775 and 1781, it had been sup ported at an actual loss. In 1785, however, when the College had just expended 300 pounds in repairing the fetry ways, and when it was beginning to receive 200 pounds annual rent, with an apparent certainty of a steady increase, the • Commonwealth of Massachusetts took action gravely affecting the interests of the College. For on March 9, 1785, John Hancock, Thomas Russell and others, were incor porated by the Legislature as the "Proprie tors of Charles River Bridge," to build a bridge in place of the ferry, the charter providing that the grantees should pay the College 200 pounds a year for forty years, at the end of which time the bridge was to' become the property of the Commonwealth : 1 ' saving to the said College a reasonable and annual compensation for the annual income of the fern- which they might have received had not said bridge been erected." To the inexact and careless wording of this charter — "an act not drawn with any commendable accuracy," as Judge Story mildly said l — was due the long legislative and legal fight which ensued for sixty years after its date, and which resulted in one of the great cases in American legal history. The bridge itself, the first one connecting Boston with the mainland, was opened June 17, 1786, and was considered at the time one of the marvels of the United States, attracting many persons from other parts of the country to view it. Of the hazards of its construction, mention was made in the argument at Washington, fifty-one years later: "It was hazardous, for no attempt at that time had been made to carry a bridge over tide water; and so doubtful were the sub scribers of its stability that a number of them 1 See Story's dissenting opinion in n Peters (1837).
285
insured their interest in it. The hazard was all their own; and so great was it thought to be, upon the breaking up of the ice, per sons assembled on the shore to see it carried away. It has stood, however, against the time and the elements; it has stood aganst everything except legislation. It was opened with processions and every demonstration of a. general rejoicing, and was considered, at the time, as an enterprise of great patri otism as well as of utility.1 The Independent Chronicle, in June, 1786, referred to the opening day as a "day of rejoicing"; and thus described the bridge itself: "This commodious and handsome struc ture is 1470 feet in length, and 42 feet within the paling. This bridge has been com pleted in 13 months, and while it exhibits the greatest effect of private enterprise within the United States, is a most pleasing proof how certain objects of magnitude may be attained by spirited exertions."2 The capital stock of the bridge was 150 shares of a par value of $333.33. Six years later, in 1792, a petition came before the Legislature to incorporate the Proprietors of the West Boston Bridge, to build a bridge between Boston and Cam bridge. Harvard College objected strongly, on the ground that it would reduce the reven ues of the Charles River Bridge. The Charles River Bridge urged that it had spent for erection of its bridge $51,000, that the cost of support was $18,800, and that its profits had not amounted to 11 per cent. A joint committee of the Legislature, how ever, reported that Charles River Bridge had no exclusive rights, and the Legis lature granted the West Boston Bridge charter (St. 1791 c. 62); but at the same 1 See argument of Warren Duttoa counsel for the Charles River Bridge, in report of the case, n Peters (1837). 1 "The Ferry, the Charles River Bridge and the Charlestown Bridge. Historical comment prepared for the Boston Transit Commission by its Chairman," November 27, 1899.
