3So
THE GREEN BAG
was a glorious exhibition for old Massachu setts; four of her leading men brought out in the same cause, and none of them inferior to those who are accustomed to the lead here. The audience was very large, especi ally as the cause advanced; — a large circle of ladies, of the highest fashion, and taste, and intelligence, numerous lawyers, and gentlemen of both houses of Congress, and towards the close, the foreign ministers, or at least some two or three of them. "The Judges go on quite harmoniously. The new Chief Justice conducts himself with great urbanity and propriety. Judge Barbour is a very conscientious and pains taking Judge, and I think will improve as he goes on. . . . Greenleaf departs tomorrow morning, but he leaves a high repute behind. I feel a sort of homesickness in parting with him, though I have seen less of him here than I should at home." Later, Story wrote to Professor Greenleaf, on February n, 1837, just before the announcement of the decision of the case : "I have the pleasure of your letter from Dane College, and I rejoice at it because you are safe and sound at home and in 'good fame' abroad. . . The Court will adjourn on Tuesday or Wednesday next. I shall then go on the speed of high pressure to Cambridge, the first and last in all my thoughts. Tomorrow (Monday) the opinion of the Court will be delivered on the Bridge Case. You have triumphed." On February 14, Story wrote to his wife; "Mr. Greenleaf has gained the cause, and I am sorry for it ... A case of grosser injustice or more oppressive legislation never existed. I feel humiliated, as I think every one is here, by the act which has now been confirmed." The decision of the court, as is well known, was that public grants are to be construed strictly, and that in the absence of express words in a charter giving exclusive privileges, no such grant can be inferred. While the legal grounds of the opinion were strong, it is strikingly clear that the Court was powerfully influenced in its decision by the economic conditions of the times and especially by the effect which it was sup posed a contrary decision would have upon
the development of the young railroads of the country. On this latter point Button for the plain tiff argued : "But the principles to be established by the judgment of the court, in this case, will decide the title to more than ten millions of dollars in the State of Massachusetts alone. If that judgment shall decide that the legislature of Massachusetts has the constitutional power to pass the act in question, what and where is the security for other corporate property? More than four millions of dollars have been invested in three railroads leading from Boston, under charters granted by the Legislature. The title to these franchises is no other, and no better than that of the plaintiffs. The same means may be employed to accomplish the same ends, and who can say that the same results will not follow? Popular prejudice may be again appealed to; and popular passions excited by passionate declamations against tribute money, exclusive privileges, and odious monopolies; and these, under skilful management, may be combined, and brought to bear upon all chartered rights, with a resistless and crushing power. Are we to be told that these dangers are imaginary? That all these interests may be safely con fided to the equity and justice of the Legis lature? That a just and paternal regard for the rights of property and the obligations of good faith, will always afford a reasonable protection against oppression or injustice? I answer all such fine sentiments by holding up the charter of Charles River Bridge, once worth half a million of dollars, and now not worth the parchment it is written upon." To this Davis for the defendant replied: "The counsel are mistaken when they say that a decision in favor of the defendants will be fatal to future enterprises. This case has stood decided in their court for several years, and the history of Massa chusetts can exhibit no period that will compare with it in investments for internal improvements; confidence in the integrity and good faith of the state never stood higher, nor did capitalists ever go forward with greater resolution and courage." Chief Justice Taney in his opinion dealt at length and very powerfully with this argument: — [n Peters 551-552].
