Yolanda Wilson Vanveen 2/2/2015 Vermont Law School Energy Law CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE v WARREN BRIDGE 36 U.S. 420 (1837) ANALYSIS The Charles River Bridge proprietors filed a lawsuit to stop a second bridge from reducing the number of users and thus reducing toll income but ulmately lost before the U.S. Supreme Court. [1] Wring for a 5-2 majority, Chief Jusce Taney ruled that the second charter did not violate Charles River Bridge Company's charter rights, and, therefore, Massachuses had not violated the Constuon's Contract Clause. The problem was that that the charter to the old bridge company did not explicitly grant it monopoly rights . Taney and the majority, over the bier dissent of Jusce Joseph Story, refused to extend monopoly rights by implicaon , parcularly when the interests of the community (as represented in the act of the legislature) were at stake. As the Court put it, any "ambiguity in the terms of the contract must operate against the private company and in favor of the public." The loss of Charles River Bridge Company's profits from the construcon of the second bridge was simply irrelevant to its contract rights. Taney was also concerned that old transportaon corporaons (like canal companies) might defeat new transportaon technology (like the railroads), by using the doctrine of implied contracts, thus holding back economic progress. [2] The owners of the Charles River Bridge could have protected their interests when they were negoang their franchise with the General Court, if they would have had contracts that explicitly granted monopoly rights. In the hypothecal situaon, the Charles River Bridge precedent would help Maine Edison receive compensaon for use of their equipment. Maine Edison has explicit monopoly rights over the poles and lines. They funded the construcon of the poles and wires and they are currently funding their maintenance. The Takings Clause does not require that private property only be transferred to governmental ownership. Throughout American history eminent domain has frequently been used to transfer private property to privately owned common carriers or regulated energy monopolies. The Takings Clause of the Fiſth Amendment, which has been made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensaon.” The Takings Clause does not prohibit the government from taking private property. It allows the government to exercise the power of “eminent domain” if two requirements are met: (1) The taking must be for a public use, and (2) The property owner must be paid fairly for his or her property. [3] In this case, Maine Edison must receive compensaon for use of their lines since they are being asked to share them by the government. The Maine Legislature passed a bill authorizing retail customers to acquire electricity from compeve providers while connuing to rely on Maine Edison to deliver the electricity. Maine Edison was previously extended monopoly rights for their poles and lines unlike the Charles River Bridge proprietors. Maine Edison is required to share their lines with other suppliers. They are entled to compensaon for the use of the lines.