The New York herald., 1878-11-12
THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE.

''LET THE WORK STOP UNTIL THE SOVEREIGN
POWER CAN AGAIN BE APPEALED ro"-yUDGE
BARRETT's OPINION.
II will be remembered that . few weeks ago there
was argued at great length in Supreme Court. Cham
bers before Judge Barrett motion behalf of tho
directors Of the East River Bridge for mandamus
directing Comptroller Kelly to issue city bonds for
the payment of another 81 instslment toward
the completion OF the bridge. The argument occu-
pied two or three days. and was participated in by
Messrs A. J. vanderpoel. Austin Abbott and Il. NJ.
Cullen ON the side. and Messrs John II. Strahan
and William II. Arnoux tho other. The motion
was opposed the ground that the fixed by the
Legislature had been expended. Judge Barrett yes
terdAy rendered the following decision. denying the
motion for = mandamus:-
a@ THE DEcrMoN.
c work expressly conferred its exercise Is not implicitly
limited I'd py q; Of the h.reior But
S
Of s:s:..y s's:
s' ssnt % .
ss
cost ~
"a ."s ;u
x. ana ssss SS
ss & to g. S. q the
mot sxcssd &c. but there slightest saggsston
81 s. sss s. sn :. s s q 8. s as
ss sS Ss a. sy @ sy .ias
ion that the language above quoted construed with
=:
ySrE :Ss ass 80 called upon srssssr sum than
SD ns s'e .as q The d Sass
Ss debt. and sSss .sssss ss s shall das
txcrrnro rv rup -ov.r
s9sss ~ % e9ns,sgG.s "a. are q part Of the
s !,,s 4. :
fss.. rsay dsa his
s es q sas s the - pPf &
M Il d y % ss s
the rclasovs ntmated that II this be
While ss'
& s % %smp a. to
restriction thai the .a,horined sums should saniee
h. ds, mpu.ss g The law making tho puerility
s q ss S@s .ngS sss
rae Ts ee s isy s a % ~ sSea %
be permitted TO add tina. the position the
% s: ss. % s & sc s. % aano Ss
V ssssr ss ssss s ca sT BE ssnsd 10 pay h.
I, without ss srGss. hope receiving In return com
,h. *. Ta.,s. a.Iss. sS: that
s. H 'sssss are q ss % sns na L s ! .S s.ss p rss
nnna.hsd .,ucn,e Wis, thsn' Why NECESSARILY they
sad pay copicts nst what has
said they shall not-uaneiy, IN NJ the xSuODnp
LiNir suouLD YIxkp
Mach has been said ABOUT the difficulty aud inutility OF
estimating In advance the cost of M
tcrprise This " suggested rs an argument against
tentton limit whore difficulty IN
Ing limit and why should public thor
lied until the that the burden counted
the cost so far Mt least TO he able fix fair maxi
mnmy In the instance, however there couId have
been dincuity for the that when
acted the experiment was not In Its inception plans and
estimates having been made long before and In fact
nearly xODtuO having already been expended upon the
work. How natural and reasonable that limit upon the
entire cost should then be hxed As 10 the thus
limiting municipal servants In the execution of public
favor construction which tends 10 check
Scc Mcdonald w. tho Mayor ~ York ~
Let the ccia keep strictly within his statutory
III the work cannot be douc with the aoried-tha
H. within the prescribed limiisle IL stop I'm the SOW
eregn power again be appealed to.
TAXING un!i GROUND
The present application Is addressed to judicial
discretion The rclator takes high ground, demanding
either perenptory mandamus denial of hts motion
An alternative writ he emphatically declines accent
Thus conccdes for the purposes OF this notion the
material facts in the opposing and insists that
notwithstanding pcremptory writ II his absolute right
n views correct this position is entirely nntenabe
Further f have demonstrated the o
his legal right the writ of mandanns upon we'll settled
principles should not be granted.
without specially considering the charges of waste and
extravaghnce Che other points presented In opposition
the motion must for those reasons. be denied, with SO
costa