288
THE GREEN BAG
Hitherto the case for the petitioners had been urged simply on grounds of the public need of a new bridge. In this petition, however, the popular prejudice against the old bridge, which in reality formed the basis for the desired legislation, was made clear: "It is plain that most of the remonstrants must resort to the ambuscade of vested rights in Charles River Bridge in order even to make out a plausible case. And upon this point your petitioners are free to say that if vested rights of the kind insisted upon actually exist, they will never ask for their violation. But if they do not, from what we know of the history of Charles River Bridge, we are equally free to say that that corporation is, under all circumstances, one of the last which demands the sympathy of the Legislature."
the petition, and the matter had become a political issue on which the Democrats and country legislators were lined up largely in favor of the new bridge, — the Whigs, the lawyers, the merchants with old Federalist affiliations, and the city legislators support ing the old bridge. The sharp drawing of political lines gradu ally made it evident to the Charles River Bridge faction that their previous feeling of confidence was now no longer warranted. In the Senate, an attempt was made at a compromise, and a committee was appointed to report at what date the present stock holders of Charles River Bridge would realize the amount paid by them for further stock, and six per cent interest. The committee reported such reimbursement would be Harvard College had early foreseen the effected through accrued profits by the year injury to its interests, if the petition for the 1859.' This was felt by the Senate to be too long new bridge should be granted; and, June 27, 1824, the Corporation voted that the a period to continue the rights of the old President and Treasurer should "attend to bridge; and notwithstanding generous offers the College interests relating to an application on the part of the old bridge proprietors to for a bridge from Charlestown to Boston, build a new draw, to repair or reconstruct and make such Memorial and Remonstrance their bridge or to build a spur bridge, and as they may deem proper." During all to make a reduction of 50 per cent o>n all the succeeding legislative struggle the in tolls except foot passengers, or a 50 per terests of the College were vigorously de cent reduction on foot tolls and a reduction fended in the debates. For the first three of over one-third on all other tolls, a bill years, however, no attention to its rights passed both House and Senate, granting a had been paid by the adherents of the bill; charter for the new bridge, but postponing but in the new petition of June 8, 1826, its construction for four years if the old bridge proprietors should within 60 days the College rights were thus mentioned: "The Interest of Harvard College in this agree to convey their property to the State on December 31, 1831. matter is too trifling to intercept the pro So intense, however, were the feelings gress of the petition. At most it cannot exceed, now, or hereafter, $700 a year, created by the passage of this bill, that and a way can be easily found to obviate fourteen senators, among whom were Caleb the ground of complaint without any in Cushing, James T. Austin (later Massachu justice to the University." setts Attorney General), David Sears, the No action was taken by the Legislature 1 The Committee reported that it found that S; in 1826; and in June, 1827, for the fourth time, a new petition was filed, asking for a shares had been bought by stockholders, 1812 to 1823, pi-ices varying from SiSoo to $2200. That between toll bridge, which should become free after at October, 1823, and April, 1824, the stock sold for from reinbursement of the proprietors. By this $1270 to $1550; and that $1600 was a fair market time, the public were greatly aroused. Over value, October i, 1820. The dividends for 18zi were one thousand citizens of Charlestown signed 8129; for 1826, $138.
