New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-11-17
SUPREME CoURT-SPEoIAL TERx-Nov l5-Before Juati'
LIAM uA

lNGRAHAM.
THE NEW RESERVOIR GATE-HOUsE CONTRACT.
The People Of the State Of ORR Sg Inc Mayor @e o.
IEGRAHAM jim this case the Attorney-General, on
behalf of the people for Injunction TO restrain the de-
ndn from passing any resolution directing the Croon Aque
S ao5s5oct for the new reservoir TO Fachd Walker Co..
any other person. except upon bids made IN pursuance oil
The ground on which this action and the motion now made
founded is that the Common Council Of the Cy OF New OH
have passed in Board aud are about to pass IN me 9ihe
resolution directing the contract to be gwen to
est bidder when proposals were received that work and
such resolution carried out direct violation OF the S8h
of giving such contracts and requires them all cases 10 be
given the lowest bidder The complaint charges such acts 20
be urpation the part of the municipal authorities and IN
oec ~ s case betber th action can be maintained
by the Attorney General in the Of the people -
has been heretofore by the General Term OF this Court
against the city authorities restrain them from the commits
Of illegal fraudulent acts without showing special damage
II has also been held the persons who offered TO do the
work Ut price have right to Interfere before their
bid has been accepted nasmueh there no Obligation 10 &C.
cep any bid made and they therefore, can sustain es no
damage by such an act other than any other taxpayers sustain
must Therefore be conceded under these decisions that
unless the interfere in this way there
no mode of syerng the consequences of such legislation and
that the only remedy is by criminal proceeding =, A..
this subject have some time since expressed an
at Lober 4 Abbt r Rep p 1881 had occasion examine
fully questions. II there held that the iegAon OF
the Council ought not to and could not be restrained
The legislative power of that body Is power resting IN ne
They have right to such laws and adopt suc
resolutions their Judgment are proper end IN ie
errnee to which by the vsrogs charters Of tue
y are subject 10 their Jurisdictions. Until they have egs-
lated upon subject their contemplated sotion Is not known
The e~sture should not DO as would be order them to
adopt ANY particular mode o! legislation OF any sHeh c
Is akedior on this branch Of the section would DC useless
even # the Court could grant it. -.
alton OF new one would render ncticns necessary aud
they might easily be evsded Us kno" that se
tons have heretofore been granted but have pe spe
rCstrcln the lersaoh
body authority to lesae aud have uniformly einseu
la, while sm unwilling sanction any interference with
that legislation Of the Common Soans e In ny
s Of " SSsS oS 81 ss D o y the Court
calling for such an interference -
Although question under discussion is not certainly rec
nom difficulty nciised TO the opinion that IN case show
ing clear Of the charter Of the city about to o per
formed BY the Common Council ms action may oe
from being carried and when Completed IN regard 70 money
OF property there redress excep; the unsatisfactory one 10
the treasury Of Furnishing for criminal acts. ,.e-
1t hardly necessary at present 70 eAsinlne WI loe a
on the papers submitted 70
verified BY person Of the of Baldwin who anneSes the
usual velincaiion only.
ordinances referring the making OF contracts by the Corpora
on rscss The proposals fo me Coto1 b95'd sh1 wss
tie highest es,ses snd the, BALDWIN Jsyeok nsde
10 Baldwin Jayeox that the Common Council passed reso-
luton 10 give the to tchd Walker Co.. and that
Thus nothing stated in the complaint calling ior the
this Court. As before sfetcd the esisaoh
bs Common Council should In Judgment be nereied
with BY injunction ihreatened act OF legislation
which directs the doing Of Get in violation OF the ehae
opfht not be enoned sr applies 70 the e-a,ioo
know the intent Of the Common Council % yioss me
hrteT 10 be ascertaDed until the legislation poydns iot
uch violation hzs been adopted The ~sn OF II IN 'a' oe
shcu,s the detect in the plhinifs' proceedings
IA sverred in thu complaint that since the veto ~ me
ton by the Mayor Board Of Ceuumen have the
outop by Of 10 and hat the SAINT resolution "As
b.fors Inc hoard OF Aldermen for concurrence Il,
The whole gisi Of the complaint therefore CONSISTS
~ iended passge Of the rrsolaton by thai soafd Inns
20 be- made By the allegation or information ana
ballet ths an agreement has been cneTea nis o
~ ,h Board Aldermen and Hoard OF ounciiIisa' %
resoution the WORK 70 be given contrary
10 law 10 Fairchld W alker Go. .-- = =
L omen expressed the opinion that statements on informs
lion ~ hsef without showing the sources OF sncn iaofaon
~ nj .sscent 10 the CoGrt granting inlntoh
Nor especially such allegations inuihccnL
the present case they stated IN snch We s
ne Information the parties charged wh me Iee.
ies aetS Such verihcati0n Is Is aGded 70 ini
hoa never be deemed sucieu aihdaT; 70 OBTAIN :. IN
Junction This information might BE gwen oy persons ~ $50
- more kuouisd-e those 70 whom the nierhAoH Wa
~ .nd In IN probability founded upon ruunoFs
circulated In regard the probable passage o. these
Where the people are The plaintiffs more speeinc elss
should be rcquired 81 the source Of in9rms9a' H"rW