New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-03-10
THE CANAL CONTRACTS.
Judge Cady's Decision.

Judge Cadys Decision.
Mr.. ANDREW ]. YATES, who at the recent
lettings by the Canal Commissioners obtained
contract to build certain bridge abutments on the
Erie Canal Enlargement, applied in February to
Judge CApy of the Supreme Court, at Fonda, for
peremptory mandamus to compel the Canal
Board to revise that contract and either approveor
disapprove the same. The ground of this applica-
ton was that without the approval of that Board
the contract is not binding upon the State, and
therefore cannot be safely executed by the Con
tractor. The application was sustained by
Messrs. Alonzo c. Paige, John c. Spencer and
Nicholas Hill, Jr., and was resisted by Attorney
General Chatfield, Samuel Stevens and Joshua
A. Spencer, for the Canal Board
Judge Cady, in his decision, positively refuses
the mandamus on very conclusive grounds, which
we condense as follows
l. The application is In fact and substance motion
for leave to commence action against the State, In
order to compel the Canal Board 10 give vitality 20
certain contracts as against the people OF the State
The Court has 10 authority TO allow sucn an action
to be commenced. The State Is not saaole. man-
damus may indeed issue, 10 compel ministerial OF
fcer to perform ministerial act connected with the
liabilities OF the Government, but 1t must be (accofd
irg to Justice Woodbury. where the Government
is liable, where the officer has refused 20 ach ana
where IL of clear and not doubtful right.
Moreover, action can be had against the Govern
ment excep. by virtue ofsome special statute. That
being the case 1t is Judge Cacys opinion though no
does not express Ii with absolute certainty thai no
action be maintained against an officer Of the
State to compel him to make OF complete a contract
behsk OF the State without special statute allow
ing OF such an action.
3. The hight OF the applicantto mandamus 10 also
doubtful because the duty the Canal Board 10 to DO
called on to perform is judicial and Discretionary.
IL 10 to be called on to approve or disaPprove the
contract Nov, II after its disapproval, the appli
cant could tskk an appeal from such decision, and
have 1t reversed, there might DO good reason for
the alternative mahdamus, but because that decis-
ion cannot thus be reviewed, tho alternative ought
to be struck out useless but II II struck out,
a nandamus would be Illegal
g. The applicant does not show Q clear and COM
pete right to call upon the Canal Board to approve or
oisspprOve Of the contracts, which he contends are
inchoats and void. He saw the advertisement pub
lshed by order OF the Canal Board and made propo-
posas, hoping to obtain contracts. Thousands
Of others did the same, and it would open fright
full source Of litigation every such proposer to
have the right by mandamus TO compel the Canal
Board to examine and accep. or reject his propo-
sails, with the further night 10 have such decision
reviewed on writ OF error, certol All or appeal Who
would pay the expense OF such endless law. suits :
II the State. fund Of millions would have to
be created for the purpose.
l. 1t may be said that the fact. that the applican,
has passed contracts with the Canal Commissioners,
gives him a night beyond that acquired from his
proposals. On the other hand however, he insists
that those contracts are without force and not
binding. Therefore they can give HIN any such
right
s. Suppose the annals belon ged to an individual who
should advertise for proposals to do certain work on
them, promising that he would give the work to
those who would do II on the most safe and advan-
tageous terms, would every propossr thereby ac-
quire the legal night 10 compel the advertiser TO ex
anime and accept OF reject his proposals Or they
were rejected, c0ald he commence a suit or the
ground that his offers were more advantageous to
the advertiser than others which he had accepted
of individual, the applicant cannot claim to exeg
cise 1t against the Canal Board the State In
swer TO this, the counsel for the applicant have
stated that he has right to decision on the part OF
the Canal Board, inasmuch as he cannot be CON-
PEELED to ful6il contract subject to the hazard Of
It's subsequent disapproval by the Canal Board Very
true. II the contracts be void, the applicant can
abandon them. He is not bound siil the people are
b0uId.
6. 1t has been SAID by the counsel that the sppl
cant has right to a mantsnus As a citizen OF she
years old has tse Same right, and the Canal Board
may at once be buried under million OF manda-
muses.. But there is no such right. IN the case of
the People rs. Collins, Commissioners had been ap-
pointed 10 lay out road, but refused and msnda-
mus was granted 90 compel them to act, though the
REALTORS had no other interest in the matter than
that road should lie made Those Commissioners
had discretion IN the Case but It 10 not In rsa
ton to the Canal Board in the present matter. Nor
IL it the law that when any State efcer omits pub
Tic duty any citizen has right 70 put him IN motion
by nsnc amus.
T. But II these views are unsouAi and erroneous,
there still remains the question whether this 10 a
case where mancanus ought to be granted, since
the Court has the discretion Of grating refusing
Three hundred contracts have been made some Of
them exceed $500 600 each aud altogether they p<o-
baby exceed $9,000oo0. Some of tAe contractors
already At woxk, believing their contracts To be
' aid sAd that belief they viii not surrender unless
compelled to by an act Of Regulation. Diners like
the applicant may regard taeir contracts as void
This difference Of opinion is njurisus to the
tractors and 70 the great interests Of the Stale.
nsldamus commanding the Canal Beard to approve
or disapprove Of the contracts In the hands OF the
relator would not remove this difference and
satisfy every man that his contract il void. But
II IL weud, what thea Every man who had
made proposals would have night to snch mands.
mus Suppose that under its action the Canal Board
should award contract TO him. He goes with award
to the Commissioners and demands q contract. They
reply that they have already given one to another
person for that same werk, and refuse his demand.
Then he comes for another mapdamus to compel the
Commissioners and ali this process will necessarily
extend beyond Nay 1854, when The statute requires
the jobs TO be finished. II the proposals and cen.
trans already made In the premises ere to be the
subjects OF litigation, the work canaos BE- completed
IN che specified time. The delay in the completion
OF single job on the Ene Canal, might deprive the
State Tor years Of the increased anticipated
nom the enlargement. To giant the mAndamus
asked Tor weuld lead to htigat injurious 70 ehs
best interests Of the State and not beneficial 70 the
parties. Therefore IL 10 denied, with elseoss