The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-06-06
OPPOSING THE BRO BRIDGE
The Argument. For and Against the Payment
or Another InstalIrnent.

The Board OF Apportionment heard fur
Their arguments yesterday for and against the
payment OF another installment OF New York's
quota for tho completion OF the Brooklyn
Bridge. Ex-Judge +. NJ. Sherman opened the
argument against tho Appropriation. This
city. he said. had paid about $3000000 OF its
quota. and II was fair to presume that Brooklyn
had paid It's share. That would make the total
expenditure s9.000.0oO. And tho bridge was
only half finished. Hc hI studied tho con-
struction Of bridges. and was satisfied that no
wire bridge would stand ak years unless IL was
well provided with guys and stays. Tho
Brooklyn Bridge would surely fall. 1t might
resist fifty gales. but tho fify-nrst storm might
blow it down. lie should advise his friends to
say their prayers before crossing the bridge in
November or December. He thought that tho
bridge would cost IA much more as had already
been expended upon il. lie did not believe
that the expenditure Of $4,000 900 would make
II sRie. II 1t was properly suyed and fastened
to the earth Il might last fifty years.
Mr. John II. Strahan commended that under
tho existing statutes tho bridge must be COM
plotted for sS,OQ0.0O0. and the Board Of Appor-
Torment should not appropriate more money
until 1t had been satisfied that that limit would
Mr.. o. H. Potter believed that tho power Of
inc Board .. Appor,ionm,,ent to apnropriate
WIS convinced that 1t could not be built for
Sir. Potter was followed by William H. Webb
who presented document containing the OBJ
lrctions Of the Council Of Political Reform.
This paper said that the bridge would inIure
commerce by ohstrurting the FREQ passage OF
vessels through the East river. depreciate the
dock property above the structure. and increase
taxation. The Council IT Reform also objected
to the haste Of the trustees OF the bridge COM
pgny in buying property on the Now York side
Of the river.
Henry C. Murphy. President Of the Bridge
Trustees replied to the arguments of the op-
ponents If the bridge. He said that the uue.-
hu fAFA Of mn AYfi ltI ant UNA
not whether the bridge would be- safe. but
whether the city should pay the $500. 900 asked
Tor by the trustees. The law Of 1874 made the
bridge public work Of the cities of New York
and Brook lyn. aud law of 1875 limited the cost
fits completion at $4,000 .OuO. and provided that
lyn and ono-third by New York and that tho
money should be- paid on the requisition of the
trustees of the Bridge Company. Mr.. Murphy
held that the power OF the Board OF Apportion-
ment ceased when they had become satisfied of
the legality Of this statute. Their duty then
as were called Tor by the trustees OF the Bridge
COMPANY. subject only 10 the provision OF the
sintute limiting the payment in any one year to
sl.uuO.OOb. The payments would stop OF course.
after ssuuOOQO Ind been expended, In reply
20 n question by Mr.. Strahan, Mr. Murphy adj
mited that the bridge might cost s5OO0O0 moro
thnn ss.OOO.OOO.
Mr.. Strahan held that this admission was evil
dencr that the bridge could not be completed
for the sum fixed by the statute. and argued
that II was. therefore. the duty Of the Board u
Apportioment TO refuse To- make tn, appropria-
ton Of 100000. He suggested that the whole
subject be- submitted TO the courts for a Judicial
determination.
Mr.. Murphy asked Mr. Strahan to send him
his points. ami then the meeting was adjourned.