New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-08-13
THE OPINION.


SIR; The communication dated July 10,
1878. transmitting the written argument Of John H.
strahau, esq, for o. b. Potter ESQ.,, william H. Webb
esq and Others against the further issue OF bonds for
the NewYork and Brooklyn Bridge duly received.
also tho argument in reply Of f. H. Cullen, esq
OF counsel the Bridge Company forwarded TO me by
the Controller on tho 0tD day Of July. ia. .
The laws relating TO the Brooklyn Bridge received
careful consideration at my hands on former OCCASION
and resulted In cation to the Common Council
the 10Th day September 1879 In which expressed
the opinion that under the provisions Of chapter 800 OF
Laws of 1878, there be no doubt that 1t is the
dutyof the city OF NewYoEk raise by the issue Of
bonds aud pay TO the trustees OF the Bridge Com
pang, One-third Of eight million dollars.
Three objections not heretofore considered by me-
made in argument OF Mr. StrahRn, but after full
consideration Of them cause to change the opiu
ION GU the subject heretofore given.
The first objection made is that the law Is uneonstu-
iona "a being violation OF the prohibition contained
IN the eleventh section Of the eighth article of the Con-
sttution TO the effect that city shall be allowed 70 w
cur any indebtedness excerpt for city purposes II "a
urged that this bridge not bepg built for the exclusive
purpose OF the City OF NewYOrk, but Of KewYOr and
Brooklyn and that in recognition OF this fact the Act Of
1875 which authorizes the OF the bonds nreserbes
that the two cities shall constitute consolidated district
for ITS construction and management, thus recognizing
the expenditure be for purpose Of the consolidated
district and not Of the CITY OF Hew-fOrk exclusively
The object OF the constitutional provision referred TO
was to prevent the diversion OF public money TO objects
other than the legitimate public purposes and
publie works Of tho city. The text Of the
amendment shows It's purpose: "No county, city,
town or village shall hereafter give any money or prop
cry its money credit to or In aid or any ndi
vidua association corporation, become directly or
indirectly the owner OF any stocks or bonds OF any
assocIation or corporation, shall any such
yflfa ho rva1 IN
ness except for county city town village purposes"
II is quite true that II the construction OF this bridge
Is not legitimate public work for which our people may
be taxed then the Legislative authority for this Issue OF
bonds L. UNCONSTITUTIONAL oOntTayeRing tie last SEN
tence Of tho constitutional provision cited The oblee
ions Of course would not dispute that che construction
OF bridge over streaml lying entirely within the limits
Of the city would DO purpose OF sueh city or
county from daIe long anterior 70 the adoption OF
this constitutional provision, down TO the last session OF
the legislature. IL has been the nyariabe custom to
treat the erection OF bridges legitimate object or
pnblc expenditure and 20 impose upon adjoining towns
and counties the burden Of equal contribution toward
the erection Of bridges division Flaws OF
1884, Chap 235 Laws of 1878. Chsp III The sole point
Of tho objection ~ that because tins object OF
this contemplated expenditure IL one IN which
brooklyn Is also interested that Ii 10 be
pendIure the exclusive purpose Of the Cy OF New
York. but it be noticed that there Is such word
there anything which requires that the public purpose
for which public money may be used should be one In
which only city, village or town is interested II 1t
were construed In the manner such as the obectors
clsin the only effect would be that cities, couaes, VII
Lagos aud would each be compelled 70 erect, indie
pedeuty bridges across division streams, instead Of
uniting aud sharing the expenses OF structure properly
common burden It would substitute a double 81 stem
Of construction Throughout tho State OF bridges and
other works IN which there common interests. in
place Of advantages growing from The common and haF
monious construction aud arring -ment This was not,
think the intention Of the constitutional provision. 30
long AZ the purpose for which the public money 10 be
used Is one OF legitimate objects OF public expend
ture 81 Ia not affected In my opuioh by the fact thai
some other city rs also interested therein The reference
IN the act % district, composed OF NewYork aud
Brooklyn y not such - to steae new rev tonme dys,
action Ia common work BY the Two nlnic. pc es.
s eP on ns s dte ha hfEs go eSS Sss
upon the proposition thai tile third section OF the
tnre for tie bridge, including the moneys already used
before passage of the act, 10 the Indicated.
Tns propositon u not sustained my opinion by the
language OF tue se} ton which Is as follows . Pre-.
vitrd however, thRt tue whole amount 20 be paid by
both elties shall not exceed SS,OOQO00" The expfes-
sion TO be paid" clearly future In its general slgH-
catiOn and that IL not used IN this statute without
a Ie nss eSlc we'd n iGs twsih scion 10 tbs
eject tbat the COMPLETED bridge Sha vest m the two
oites IA shares, eqal 70 the amount paid and 70 be
paid" by them for the construction, etc.
LIMITATION OF THE EXPENDITURE
am therefore, Of the opinion that in the third section
OF the law the limitation refers only expenditures
thereafter TO be made by the two cities.
Thei THIRD and last obectlon-Ihat tho bridge
can0ot be completed tor $1,000 600 Ia addition to the
ls75-iepoads upon the proposition that the law i'm
poses an obigation upon the 9ltes 70 advance the
IS 600 900 only IN this amount shall be sufficient TO
fully complete tue bridge. As read che law no sueh
qualification Is attached to tue obligation Of the cities 10
mako the Indicated payments. That obligation Is UNI
duuHed except IN two specified particulars rst that
the whole an6unt 70 DO pad by both otes shalt not eS
G Sot UPON 70 pS more tSsp 81 900 in any
year. subject TO these limitations alone. the City Of
as med for by the trustees OF The bridge.
II Will be noticed that the second sectOn OF tine Law
1875 gives che Board OF Trustees fun and exclusive
powef, control and direction over the plan and
tynetioo OF the bridge and consequently the trustees
alone are to pass upon the question whe Their
their paus be car led out at OF less tnan SO 0U0
600 No othor power board authorized by any law
known TO me 70 entertain jurisdiction OF inquiry
this point The limitation IN the third section Is not In
The reason IS obvious. While e might be dihicnlt,
no control over affairs OF the bridge, determine it's
probable cost, IL would always be perfectly simple for
them 90 ascertain what amounts the cities had actually
paid. This, therefore, the limitation adOptedthe
exclusive control OF tue construction beng sft to the
payments until the Of Ss,O00000 shall have been
paid 9y them AZ thai p2as Tue Trustees lose !1eir a
money aud Rt that point only can the TWO cities refuse
70 make their respective pay hehts.
The duty imposed by law upon tho trustees OF the
bridge Is prouoe specific structure which cannot De
reduced p length Tor = pns roach from one SIDE q tue
the requirements OF the Act OF Congress OF March 3,
1860 IN strength for u must be safe beyond aues.
ton Unless IL should appear therefore, beyond the
possibility OF dispute that there were several methods
OF making the requirements, and that the
trustees had selected QUE involving an expenditure OF
more than Ss,0O00O0, I mucn doubt whether II
would DO proper for body possessing right
OF supervision TO question the proprety OF the pro-
eetule i do not understand that any such State OF
facts 10 either conceded claimed 70 exist The papers
present no question TO the entire good itn and pro
nriety OF the trustees In their oieal action and
reason ~ for pposing that greater expense
has been incurred than 10 actually necessary IL may
aso be observed that by later law than that OF 1873
Cnaper l65, Laws Of 1871 the Legislature has author
gad tha trusfaas of the