Legal instrumentalism: Mill dam laws
“No State of the Union is more interested than ours in the improvement of natural advantages for the application of water power to manufacturing purposes. Nature has denied to us the fertile soil and genial climate of other lands, but by way of compensation has endowed us with unrivalled opportunities of turning our streams of water to practical account. The present prosperity of the State is largely due to what has already been done towards developing these natural advantages.” – Justice __, in Fernald Municipal subsidies for canals and railroads City of Bridgeport v. Hoosatonuc Railroad Co. – Connecticut, 1843 (15 Conn. 475); In re Opinion of the Justices (Manufacturing Subsidy Case) – Maine, 1871 (58 Me. 590); Lowell v. City of Boston – Massachusetts, 1873 (111 Mass. 454)
Courtesy Wikimedia Commons Building and controlling bridges
|
Water mill, Kennebunk, Maine - courtesy Library of Congress and Wikimedia Commons “I cannot help thinking that this statute was incautiously copied from the ancient colonial and provincial acts, which were passed when the use of mills, from the scarcity of them, bore a much greater value, compared to the land used for the purposes of agriculture, than at present. But with this we have nothing to do. As the law is, so we must declare it.” – Chief Justice Isaac Parker, in Stowell “[I]t was neither the declared nor the actual purpose of the city to deal or speculate in the stock of the Rail-Road Company, but solely to aid in the construction of what was believed to be a great public improvement, which would result in direct advantage to the city, by directing the business of the interior from other channels, and securing it to Bridgeport. … [I]f … the city became directly a stockholder in a corporation… this was only an incidental result of their efforts to give aid to the construction of the road for the interest of the city and its citizens.” – Justice __, in Hoosatonuc “There is nothing of a public nature any more entitling the manufacturer to public gifts than the sailor, the mechanic, the lumberman, or the farmer. Our government is based upon equality of rights. All honest employments are honorable. The State cannot rightfully discriminate among occupations.” – Justice John Appleton, in Manufacturing Subsidy Case “[The presumption of exclusivity would] amount to an entire prohibition of all further internal improvement during their continuance. … [T]his construction is neither consonant with sound reason … nor with the principles of our free institutions.” – Justice Marcus Morton, in Charles River Bridge “[The old presumption promotes] a continued and increasing confidence in legislative contracts. Men of capital and energy would embark their funds in enterprises of a public character, in the hope that their own fortunes might be advanced with the public prosperity. The State would command the wealth and services of the people. But let the reverse of this be suspected, and public credit will be paralyzed.” – Justice __ Putnam, in Charles River Bridge “Cases may exist where, owing to a change in the population, business, and intercourse of the country, the public interest may require the opening of new avenues within the rights of such exclusive grants, and in which the indiv right should be made subservient to the public use; but this may be done without a violation of the public faith. Whatever the public require they are able to pay for – and it is not for the public interest that the grants of the government should be held good so long only as there is no desire to interfere with them – good while they are onerous to the grantee, and invalid when others may wish to participate in the benefits derived from them.” –Chief Justice Joel Parker, in Piscataqua Bridge |
EMPIRE OF LAWS - The Legal History of the 50 American States > 1. NEW ENGLAND LEGAL HISTORY > 1.3. New England (1833-1865): The Antebellum Period > 1.3.1. New England (1833-1865): New England Against Slavery > 1.3.2. New England (1833-1865): Antebellum Social Reforms >