The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-10-17
OUR COSTLY BRIDGE.
Argument on The Motion to Compel Comp
uOlsr Kelly to Issue More Bonds.
TEN MILLIONS ALREADY SPENT
President Murphy and tho Trustees Charged
with Fraud and EXtraVagancs.

The argument on the motion to compel Comptroller ,
Kelly by mandamus 10 issue 81. 00o 900 bonds for
Brooklyn Bridge was continued IN Supreme Court,
Chambers before Judge Barrett, yesterday morning,
MesArs William Henry Arnoux and Robert II. Strahau
ted tho oity, Edgar " Cullen and Aaron
J. vandcrpooi the Bridge Company.
Mr.. Cullen argued the question OF the proper
form OF bringing this proceeding that the appics
ton Tor u maudamus should be directed against .
the Corporation Of New York ut large but specially
against the Comptroller, because It was hrs special
fault that tho Corporation did fulfil its duty
Issue these bonds. Mr. Cullen urged snat tho Com
Council had no right 10 pass resolution direct.
Ing the Comptroller withhold the ISSUE Of The
bonds uutl the question mad been judioialy settled.
II was as II Common Council wore saytng 10 the
Comptroller, .Don't obey the law" Mr.. Cullen
handed TO the Court Autographed copy OF the
opinion OF Corporation Counsel Whitney that Ihs
city bound to Issue these bonds. \
Judge Barrett asked II there any private IN.
terests In the bridge whether IL was solely
properly OF the two cities9
Mr. Cuen replied that by the act Of 1875 tho pri.
vate stock in the company purchased, and IL was
entirely owned by tho TWO cities Hs claimed
that tho Of S. 900. 600 nxod for The u
tho bridge not limit.
CAN HUNDRED hLLIoNss
Judge Barrett asked whether, according TO this
principle. the trustees OF tho bridge could spend
$780, O0O 900 H. and whether alter the S., 000 900
provided Tor had boon spent the work would havc to
stop until the Legislature authorized the remainder
or tho expenditure Of Lhis sl0O, 900, DOOR
MIR. Cullen replied thut 1t u apparent to the
Court that Inc bridge would cost 500 o0o 0J0 u
would, doubtless, be 20 arocious case - 10 justify
1t IN refusing the maDdamus.
Mr.. Strahau-rhe point winch / wanted Mr. Murphy
to meet, and which l understand him 10 admit, 10
that according to tho original designs IN 1876 shs
bridge would have S. 600 900; but that
through bis waste extravaganoe ana irauduency this
cost will be greatly exceeded.
Judge BaTrctt-I DO not understand him 10 admit
IT, Will hear you in tho proper Tine Mr. strahAn.
recess, when Mr. Strnhan replied behalf OF Comp
troter Kelly. Mr.. Strahan ciatnod that u was
no mandamus should be granted The city oil New
York was corporation. and could DO sued.
i. was neld that an action must be- brought
against the Comptroller ana mandamus
tory upon inc Comptroller TO Issue bouds and pay
Tor work done Tor the CITY. He maintained tuat tho
erence their remedy against The city any other
creditors. More especially must Inc proceeding
this must DO passed upon by the Auditor before It
properly DO presented to the Comptroller Tor pay
GrveA, the cour, o. Appeals sos unanimously ina.
tue Comptroller could not be called upOa pay any
demand or claim until II had boon properly examined
Mr.. Vanderposl denied that the trustees Of the
bridge were ordinary creditors against the o,ty.
PRANK ADMISSIONS.
Mr.. Ssrahan dwet upon Inc iact that Henry q.
Murphy admitted that The cost OF the bridge would
he ans.third higher Than liked The aos Of
1875. Tue trustees into and admitted
that ample provision had beon made Tor the compie.
ton i've WORK by Legislature or 1885, but tnsy
said that by reason OF their WASTE extrAvKsance
fraudulent proceedings they could complete the
work except for 0ne-third more than stipulated
by the Legislature The Comptroller WAS ready
prove 20 any n,sl.egsn. Jury me .ssss'oas made
cxtravagancs and iraudusnt acts. Was II 10
tolerated tina. where expi,ct limits were plssed npoa
puDnc officers the experiences with the New YORK :
Court House was 10 Do repeated when money
asked Tor again ana .saia anta ne s.ruc.ure cost
trustees must BE- held 70 their duty, and The only
way Of defending me cMys interests ana holding
Tor uatl Il VAS judic'aily decided that these funds
within the law and that the trustees would per-
form their obligation and complete the bridge with
the amount stipulated BY Law.
Mr.. Aruoux argued shat, as tho Comptroller acted
under the direction Of the Common Couhcil, tao
danus granted ~ all must be directed against the
Common Council, who had revoked tAeir consent ~
the OF these bonds. Mr.. Armour quoted from
the Law OF 1875, providing that the wneLs lmouns 10
be paia BY bolh o,,ss shall ne. exceed $s.oooOoo
POINTED QUESTION:.
Judge Barrctt-How nucs has beea PAID altogsthsrf
Mr. euiisn-Fve millions ana three hundred thou
Mr.. strahan-Tsn millions altogether, under the
MT. Cuiien~Yes; about $40, 900. 600 altogether.
1--WE know that shis IN ilion vii be merely thrown
away At the bridge" MI Arnoux urged, land that,
after u 10 spent, the work viii still be- incomplete.
Your HONOR cannot assume that alter tbey have ex-,
haasted the 81, ooo,ooo tho Legislature win grant
them more, ! Tho work has stop, why
not let 10 STOP nswf They think the legislature will
say, Gentlemen, We shoald never nave granted 700
this money we mad not thought that ysa would
complete sne bridge With H. but 40 you are
Tho end We viii give Yea tue rest But
Your Honor cannos assume thai she Legislsturs will
be influenced by any sucn argument Tor, 10 do so,
would BIO TO ENCOURAGE the wastoiui wicked
travagarce OF thess trustec& IL would DO pvtting
premium upon fraudulent conduct In the sdmnissra.
tion OF civil affairs"
Before this pesch was finished the Court ID.
jourcd until shts morning, M Armour will oou.
cladc his argument Mr.. Vanaerposl viii reply on
behalf OF the Bridge Company, Judge Barrett win
then take the papers reserve his 0solsioa In she
A DEFECTIVE ARCH.
#fmE