New-York tribune., 1878-11-12
BRooKLYE BRIDGB FUNDS.
JUDGE BARRETT DENIES A MANDAMUs.

JUDGE BARREI1 DE<NIbO n nhNDh"c'
THE BRIDGE MUST DE FINISHED WITHIN THE LIMIT
FIXED BY THE LEGISLATURE, OR The SOW
rRTIGy POWER MUsT BIZ APPEALED TO AGAIN
The motion by Henry c. Murphy, as presi-
dent of the Brooklyn Bridge Company, 10 compel the
CITY OF New York 81 100000 for the compile
ton Of the bridge has been denied by Judge Barrett In
an elaborate opinion he states the legal question as
follows:
Was the legislative provision in question mere
appropriation ii limitation upon the entire
cost 1t il urged that where the latter is intended ex-
press words OF limitation are generally used That may
be quito true, and ii NAV be good reason why ihe n
plicaton should he clear and irresistible But thal Is
all. The legislative intent s not TO he ignored because
of the folm OF IT'S expression LooSns az ne a. %
seems quite pain that me general power M e
subject 10 the provisO that the bridge Is 10 0e uy com
plctcd az cost to the two cities OF not more na elSht
millions Of dollars. For sum wlthn tnat lnip 70 3e
paid by them they are 10 have structure open 10 np
lie travel and with its debts and ablltles fuy palu
The entire act from it, title TO the last sect0n contem
plates the completion Of the work. ana the thrd section
fixes the maximum OF eXpendlinic.
Judge Barrett examines at length the other provisions
OF the law distributing the cost between the Cities OF
New York and Brooklyn and concludes that nothing can
be derived from them contradictory to the idea hat the
legislative intention To limit the whOle future cost
to the cities to $s 100000. He says:
1t utmated that even II TINS be correct rearing @
Of the proyiso, Limitation upon tbe cost was nor hot
effected that the Legislature. While thus undOhDtedy
limiting the appropriations SIMPLY ntenucd sd 10 m m %
thereon the expression OF ucsTe enluIeu ~ a w.
tive rcstuctOD tDat the authorized sum sDonid suee.
This idea imputes to the law MAhInE poNfi .he lueI
y OF mere Idle admOnitiOu. IL is wholly WITHOUT war
rant IN the comprehensive and OrCIDr lhnsuage ei-
Dloyed: and ii Dr sound can ony ray lh no Iii
taton upon the cost 0f public worn can y, chrceu p
muicatOu We must he permitted 10 add thht te posi
trustees really borders uiOn Lu!Iucatl"u W
ili the rcatOr claims that althOgI
the two ciurs cannot under the eXbllnS dW De Ieueu
TO pay more taan the eight millions, yei thty
wlthont the slightest hope of receiving return
a conpIeted structure thus the legis,atHrc do-
clarCs thai tie whole amount 10 be paid shal no. inc
trustees that IL snail. exceed elgnt mllllOnS Ihs Us
ullnons and receive unfinished structure Nhat
tlpul W Y, necessarily they must elthcr rose s"o-
stantaly ali tbat has been expended OF 10 on anu 91
to complete Just what the LcslSlaluTe ms n'u 'i'1
snail NOT namely, H. excess Of the elght nllLonS. m
Much has been SAID aDout the dillChlb anu inltHb
of estimating in advance the cost ol so eet ana hO'e
an eDtrpIisr Tins is suggested as IN argument hgtnt
an intention 60 limit the cost. But where ls TIE dni-
cutv i'm fyne some limit, ami why should any public
work be authorized uudl the power thai Imposes tue
burden has counted the cost, so far nj lds rs 10 nc
able to hx "a fair maximum In tue present Instance
however there could have been ho dlIitiy, Tor mo
rason nat when the LEGISLATURE acted the experiment
wa. not. in its Inception, plans ana estimates
havug made long before. ana, III Iact hcdriy
five millions OF dollars having hiirddy Dceh eN-
pendrd upon the Wura. How natural anu reasonable
that lInit upon rae entire cost should ihcn Dc hXel
Az 10 The wisdom Of thus limiting municipal servants IN
tho execution pubuc trusts there surely can De no
doubt, and the Court should iaNor c'hsi non Nu,l
tcncS check imprOvidcnco and waste ltl Le Oihcal
keen strictly vi. ln hls statutory authority. III lbe
work cannot be done with the means Afforded tat u,
within the prescribed limits, ct II stop until the SOW
ereign power can again be appealed u.
After discussing some merely technical questions, he
adds. as hs conclusion:
without specially consdering the charges OF waste and
.u the motion must, for these reasons Oe denied Win
SO costs.