The American Nation A History of the United States, Combined Volume (14th Edition)

The Marshall Court 243

control of interstate electric power lines and even
radio and television transmission.
Many of Marshall’s decisions aided the economic
development of the country in specific ways, but his
chief contribution lay in his broadly national view of
economic affairs. When he tried consciously to favor
business by making contracts inviolable, his influence
was important but limited—and, as it worked out,
impermanent. In the steamboat case and in
McCulloch v. Maryland, where he was really deciding
between rival property interests, his work was more
truly judicial in spirit and far more lasting. In such
matters his nationalism enabled him to add form and
substance to Hamilton’s vision of the economic
future of the United States.
Marshall and his colleagues firmly established the
principle of judicial limitation on the power of legisla-
tures and made the Supreme Court a vital part of the
American system of government. In an age plagued
by narrow sectional jealousies, Marshall’s contribu-
tion was of immense influence and significance, and
on it rests his claim to greatness.
John Marshall died in 1835. Two years later, in
the Charles River Bridgecase, the court handed
down another decision that aided economic devel-
opment. The state of Massachusetts had built a
bridge across the Charles River between Boston
and Cambridge that drew traffic from an older, pri-
vately owned toll bridge nearby. Since no tolls were

collected from users of the state bridge after con-

struction costs were recovered, owners of the older

bridge sued for damages on the ground that the

free bridge made the stock in their company worth-

less. They argued that in building the bridge,

Massachusetts had violated the contract clause of

the Constitution.

The Court, however, now speaking through

the new Chief Justice, Roger B. Taney, decided

otherwise. The state had a right to place “the com-

fort and convenience” of the whole community

over that of a particular company, Taney declared.

“Improvements” that add to public “wealth and

property” take precedence. How John Marshall

would have voted in this case, in which he would

have had to choose between his Dartmouth

College and steamboat case arguments, will never

be known. But like most of the decisions of the

Court that were made while Marshall was chief jus-

tice, the Charles River Bridgecase advanced the

interests of those who favored economic develop-

ment. Whether they were pursuing political or eco-

nomic advantage, the Americans of the early

nineteenth century seemed committed to a policy

of compromise and accommodation.

Martin v. Hunter’s Lesseeat

myhistorylab.com

ReadtheDocumentMcCulloch v. Marylandatmyhistorylab.com

ReadtheDocument

Table 8.1 Supreme Court Decisions and Economic Growth

Specific Issue Marshall Court Ruled— Economic Consequences

Dartmouth

College v.

Woodward

(1819)

NH sought to revoke the charter of

Dartmouth College, a private school,

and turn it into a public institution

For Dartmouth College: Contracts

cannot be overturned

Ensured the security and regularity

of business agreements and pro-

tected property rights

McCullough

v. Maryland

(1819)

Maryland proposed to tax the

Baltimore branch of the Bank of the

United States; McCullough, cashier for

the bank, refused to pay Maryland tax

For federal government: States

cannot tax the federal government

Ensured the supremacy of federal

government over states; also strength-

ened the Bank of the United States

and promoted economic growth

Gibbons v.

Ogden

(1824)

NJ steamboat operator sought to run

a ferry across the Hudson River

between New Jersey and New York

(City), challenging a company that had

a New York monopoly on such ferries

For the competing ferry: States

cannot make laws that impede

interstate commerce

Encouraged interstate commerce

and fully national markets

Charles

River Bridge

Case (1837)

Operators of a company that had

a contract to run a ferry across the

Charles River sued Massachusetts

for building a bridge that ruined

the company—thereby rendering

its contract worthless

For Massachusetts: The needs of

the community transcend con-

tract rights (Note: Marshall had

died by time of decision)

Promoted new economic initiatives