The legislature proceeded to give Harvard College permission to run a ferry on the Charles River between Boston and Charlestown.

As time had passed, the two towns had grown and communication between them had become more important, and technology was at a point now where a bridge appeared to be a wise economic undertaking.

The public started to complain about having to continue to pay tolls after the bridge's profits had far surpassed the original capital, with interest; but the new investors did not care.

The case was argued before the Court in 1831, where the plaintiffs argued that it was unconstitutional for the Massachusetts legislature to charter the Warren Bridge, because creating a competing bridge violated the contract clause in Article I, Section 10, which states, "No State shall pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts".

Before the Charles River Bridge case was argued before the Supreme Court again, there was a situation in 1833 involving the Camden and Amboy Railroad and the Delaware and Raritan Canal companies.

This was not a case that went before the Supreme Court, but many prominent lawyers and justices were asked for their opinion on the situation, and among them was Taney, who was then the Attorney General of the United States.

So long as this court shall continue to exercise this most salutary and highest of all its functions, the whole legislation of the country will be kept within its constitutional sphere of action."

He argued that if the Court sided with the defense, the public would then be able to urge the legislature to render other corporations' property valueless, as it had for the Charles River Bridge Company.

The Warren Bridge lawyers also argued on the basis of eminent domain, which enables federal and state governments to take private property for public use as long as it provides the owner with compensation.

Justice John McLean read an opinion stating that he was in favor of the Charles River Bridge company but that it was not the Supreme Court's place to make a decision.

In his remarks, Taney also explored what the negative effects on the country would be if the Court had sided with the Charles River Bridge Company.

Taney made the point that with the rise of technology, canals and railroads had started to take away business from highways, and if charters granted monopolies to corporations, then these sorts of transportation improvements would not be able to flourish.

One Democratic magazine wrote, in regard to Taney's opinion, "he pursues his unbroken chain of clear, logical reasoning, spreads light all around, leaving no cloud to confound or mislead those who may come after him.

Members of the party felt that the Massachusetts legislature had violated its contract, and that it was the federal government's responsibility to fix the state's mistake.

(2 New York Review 372, 385 (1838)) Many prominent men, including Daniel Webster and Chancellor Kent, a well-known jurist, expressed their disappointment in the Supreme Court for allegedly violating the Constitution.