The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-08-05
THE COURTS.
Important Decision by Judge Johnson in
the East River Bridge Case.
MOTIONF AN INJUNCTION DENIED
The Interstate ExtraditiOn
Laws.
DR.. FLINT AND HIS TEA KETTLE

The suit brought by Abraham r. Miller against tho
Mayors and Corporations of the Cities of New York
aud Brooklyn and the Trustees of the East River
Bridge Company camo up on motion for m ipjunc-
tion, on the ground alleged the complaint that
the construction Of the East kiver Bridge IL OBJ
struction to tho navigation of tho river aud public
nuisance Tho case was some time ago argued before
Chief Justice Johnson, OF the Circuit Court who yes
terday lcd his decision denying the motion Tor In
junction. Tho following cmbodcs the main points in
the decision -
Judge johnson states tho Court derives no urisdic-
ton In the from the citizenship OF the parties as
all citizens of the State of New York and the sub
jcct matter OF the SUIT must be looked to sustain
the jurisdiction. The claim Of the plaintiff that the
proposed bridge will be public nuisance, from which
he will, in addition, suffer private injury, and that
the bridge will violate tho law of New York or that
Of the United States For violation OF
tho law of tho State OF New York the
puintiT cannot into the Circuit Court. He
and the defendants citizens OF tho State OF New
York, and he must seek his remedy from that State.
The Judge, in support OF this part of his decision,
quoted Mr.. Justice Gs opinion IN the Passaic Bridge
The opinion then goes on TO say that the in
qury u.s. Whether by the constitution or the laws of
lie nuisance and specially injurious to the plantT9
Congress has legisa,ed directly upon the subject Of
this bridge, and the law has referred the previous
legislation of the State Of New York The opinion then
set forth in chronological order the laws of the State
Of New York and Of tho United States relating to tho
building OF the bridge Tho OF Congress in relation
TO the matter took the subject Of the effect OF the
bridge upon the navigation OF the East RIVER where 1t
was lett by the law Of New York and introduces posi-
tive provisions the subject instead Of the merely
in tho act have been taken then there the direct
authority of Congress for proceeding IN tho construc
ton OF tho bridge in conformity with the proposed
plans and determination that the navigation OF the
shall not be INSTRUCTED, unless Congress does not
have the power thus to legislatc. But II
decided In case IN Pennsylvania vs. Tho Wheeling
Bridge Company that tho authority of Congress to
Supreme Court had decided to have been obstruc-
ton unimpaircd. All the cases IN the United
States Supreme Court, auhortativey decided, hold
that the laws Of Congress In the regulation of
merce paramount. The decision then gave
resume OF number OF cases applicable to the question,
and continued that results from the cases consid
cred that the authority Of Congress s paramount IN
the regulation OF commerce under tho constitution,
and that It's determination In respect TO Interference
with navigation by obstruction thereto is conclusive
And thus power of Congress Is at all times capable OF
exercise II il should turn out that the Judgment of
Congress mistaken and that navigation inju-
dicousIy affected 1t could require bridge TO be altered
or removed The OPINION next considered ' tho
authorization OF The act OF Congress had been pnr-
sued" 1t Is not claimed that there has been any de.
parturo the actual construction of the bridge from
of War In accordance with the law. that any is IN
tended, "and, therefore, II am right 10 the positions
before maintained the plaintiff is not entitled TO the
writ OF injunction which he asks from this Court
Judge Johnson is also of the opinion that the act Of
May H. 1875, Of the Laws OF New York gives further
to the construction of the bridge II such
might be considered necessary BY this act the bridge
in lis entirety became public work and received tho
sanction OF tho State and indictment against the
two cities could have been supported In tho State
courts.
n IN n vcry indirs
interest Of the plaintiff nor TO tho question OF the de-
lay OF years In the construction OF tho bridge during
which time millions Of dollars have boen expended and
these points were summary disposed Of The motion
for the Injunction was denied.
FUNCTIONS OF THE HABEAS CORPUS.
The peculiar circumstances under which effort is
being made under writ OF habeas corpus, to take to
Georgia Benjamin W. Brisoo, arrested here man.
date OF Governor Tildcn upon requsition from the
Governor Of Georgia. have already been fully given In
the HERALD The up for further argument
yesterday before Judge westbrook, In Supreme Court
Chambers.
Mr. Booksaver recited tho contents OF tho papers
tho case including the order OF arrest tho Of
Sheriff Conner, and the traverse TO the returns by
sheriff Pcrknson, OF Fulton county, Georgia Ho also
called attention to the requiston upon Governor TIL
don by the Governor OF Georgia, and tho mandate
Issued by Governor rilden upon such requsition. 1t
was set forth IN the returns OF Sheriff Conner that
Governor Tljen had Jurisdiction in the matter and
that tho proceedings behalf of the State OF Georgia
made IN good faith, but to the prejudice of
the rights Of the creditors OF the prisoner in this city,
Mr. Purdy proceeded to give his version OF tho facts
lie then commended that writ OF habeas corpus could
issue Ia like the present and cited some author
in support of this proposition. IL being conceded
that habcas corpus could no urged fur
Their the second order could in aud
ride tho mandate of Governor Tilden. rbe Governor
having issued the mandate on full hearing OF all par.
cnnt q RI n rpvte Tim
He insisted that the Court could not say that the Gov
crnor mad no right TO Issue his mandate suggestion
had been made that the present action was COLLISION on
the part oil the friends OF the prisoner TO get him out
OF the state. He denied that there any collision
In the His Honor could inquire tothe technical
regularity OF the papers and 20 no further. Supposng
the prisoner had committed murder IN Georgia. could
he be kept here on proceedings in civil suitg The
right oil private citizens would have to give way He
contcnded that tho principle was the same whether tho
foreign indictment was for larceny or murder. As tho
stool the parties here could continue to get out
orders OF arrest there would be end to the lti
cation, ana meantime the prisoner would be kept in
Jail here.
Mr. Trull claimed that tho Court had juris fiction
to decide between the conflicting claims. Such
not the object OF the writ OF habeas corpus The Rur
pose OF such writ was 10 bcrae. He knew OF no che,
and he challenged the citation OF one where the
had been used as sought TO DO used now. The other
sGc insisted that on tho mandate OF the Governor
there was legal obligation to surrender the prisoner
He claimed that the proper course was by Ihandamu
Inc statutes o. ms s'a,e PROVIDED nat unfss u was
shown that had been arrested by the order of
"a court Of incompetent jurisdiction he could not be
discharged lie called attention 10 the power given by
the constitution OF the United States to Governors
mandates and also to tho act passed BY Congress
l'o3 bearing on the subject lie insisted that II
ongcd solely to this State to settle by legislation tho
circumstances under which the Governor ISSUE us
mandate
Alter some further argument Judge wcstbrook took
the papers, reserviDe his decision
DIR. RUFUS WAGNER FLINT.
There was another hearing before Judge wcstbrook
yesterday IN the OF DR.. RUFUS Wagner Flint, tho
scI(. Il We'd writing MEDIUM who will ha rcme uhurad