to erect a bridge and to take tolls for the space of forty years, to which term the charter was limited, and during which they were to pay £200 annually to Harvard College, in compensation for the income from the ferry, which was thus destroyed. The bridge was accordingly built, and opened June 17th, 1786. In 1792, its charter was extended to seventy years. In 1828, the Legislature of Massachusetts incorporated a company by the name of "The Proprietors of the Warren Bridge," authorizing them to erect another bridge over Charles River, distant from the former bridge sixteen rods in its commencement at Charlestown, and fifty rods at its terminus in Boston. This was accordingly done. The Warren Bridge, by the terms of its charter, was to expire in six years, and to become free. The question before the Court was simply, whether the second act of the Legislature of Massachusetts, incorporating this bridge, was in violation of the provision in the Constitution of the United States, declaring that "no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts." This again opened collateral questions, -as to the proper interpretation of a grant or act of the Legislature, and how far its exact words are to be extended by implication; as to the right of eminent domain, and the extent of sovereign powers to appropriate private property for public use; as to the powers of a legislature to make grants of exclusive franchises, and other minor questions, all of which are treated with an exhaustive wealth of learning.

My father's opinion in this case is one of the most powerful, close, and learned of all that he ever propronounced. And, indeed, this, with the judgments in the

Dartmouth College case, and in Hunter v. Martin, may be considered as his greatest efforts in Constitutional Law. The grasp and vigor of his mind are here eminently visible. The learning brought to the illustration of the question, the solid movement of the argument, and the comprehensive spirit in which the case is discussed, must command the admiration even of those who differ from its conclusions. It was received with warm approbation by the profession. The judgment of the Court was not generally deemed to be founded on satisfactory grounds, while the dissenting opinion of my father was fully approved by such men as Mr. Chancellor Kent, Mr. Webster, Mr. Prescott, and Mr. Mason.

Mr. Webster, in an argument in behalf of the Lowell and Boston Railroad Company, made in January, 1845, before a Committee of the Massachusetts Legislature, speaking of this case, said,

"I cannot but consider the act of the Legislature in that matter and the decision which followed it, as unhappy, unfortunate, bad in themselves, and lamentable as a precedent. I have no desire to arraign any body's motives or intelligence. On the other hand, I take it for granted, that all engaged in it acted from the best of their judgments. Still, I must say, that when I look back now, after a long lapse of years, and read the judgment of those Judges who maintained. the Constitution against the act of the Legislature, and on the other hand, that of those Judges who sustained the act of the Legislature against the Constitution, I must say, that I see, or think I see, all the difference between a manly, honest, and just maintenance of the right, and an ingenious, elaborate, and sometimes half shame-faced apology for what is wrong.

"Now I am willing to stake what belongs to me as a

lawyer, and I have nothing else, and to place on record my opinion, that that decision cannot stand; that it does not now enjoy the general confidence of the profession; that there is not a head, with common sense in it, whether learned or unlearned, that does not think, not a breast that does not feel that, in this case, the right has quailed before the concurrence of unfortunate circumstances.

"If there be error in the opinions of those who did not concur in the judgment, or if those opinions prove any want of legal perception, or thorough legal learning, insight, moderation, or discretion, or of consistent principle, without speaking of any near me, let me come in and take my humble share with Story and Thompson and McLean."

My father thus speaks of the arguments and opinions in this case in letters to his friends:

TO CHARLES SUMNER, ESQ.

MY DEAR SIR:

Washington, January 25th, 1837.

I thank you truly and heartily for your kind letter. It was like a warm spring breeze, after a cold, wintry, northern blast which had frozen up all one's feelings and sensations. It was not the less comforting, that it was dated from Dane College, and told of all that was thought and done there, and of the law, and the learned in the law, sojourning there in literary ease, and not disquieted with the turmoils of Washington. It brought back old Cambridge to me, with somewhat of the feelings of Goldsmith, amid his desolate wanderings in strange realms,

"Where'er I rove, whatever realms to see,

My heart untravelled fondly turns to thee!"

We are fairly into the business of the court; in medias res. The Charles River Bridge case has been under argument ever since last Wednesday, and is just concluded. Every argu

ment was very good, above and beyond expectation, and that is truly no slight praise, considering all circumstances. Our friend Greenleaf's argument was excellent, -full of ability, point, learning, condensed thought, and strong illustration, — delivered with great presence of mind, modestly, calmly, and resolutely. It was every way worthy of him and the cause. It has given him a high character with the Bench and with the Bar, and placed him in public opinion exactly where you and I could wish him to be, among the most honored of the profession. He has given Dane College new éclat, sounding and resounding fame; I speak this unhesitatingly. But at the same time I do not say that he will win the cause. That is uncertain yet, and will not probably be decided under weeks to come. I say so the more resolutely because on some points he did not convince me; but I felt the force of his argument. Governor Davis made a sound argument, exhibiting a great deal of acuteness and power of thinking. Dutton's argument was strong, clear, pointed, and replete with learning. Webster's closing reply was in his best manner, but with a little too much of fierté here and there. He had manifestly studied it with great care and sobriety of spirit. On the whole, it was a glorious exhibition for old Massachusetts; 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, especially 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. Our session will probably be short, and but for the constitutional questions before us, would have ended by this time. In truth, we broke down and sifted the whole docket last term, leav

now.

ing nothing ready for trial behind us. Our labors then, tell The docket scarcely now contains more than sixtyfour or sixty-six cases, of which not more than seventeen or eighteen are new, so that the business of the court is diminishing.

Greenleaf departs to-morrow morning, but he leaves a high repute behind. I feel a sort of home-sickness in parting with him, though I have seen less of him here than I should at home.

I am anxious to know how codification will go in our legislature. I have never doubted that it will encounter strong opposition, and I question exceedingly whether Mr. Cushing's paper, if printed, with all its ability and learning, will not press against any scheme of codification. Personally, I have no interest in the fate of the project, because, as you well know, I shall decline being a commissioner, if I should happen to be asked.

Give my kindest regards to Mr. Hillard, and believe me as

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. I write you on Sunday, being deep in engagements, and can only thank you for all the goodly contents of your epistle. 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.

To-morrow (Monday) the opinion of the Court will be delivered in the Bridge case. You have triumphed. All the Judges, except McLean, are of opinion that the Su