The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-08-13

the constitutional provision % exclusive" nor
Is there anything which requires that the public pur
pose Tor which public money may be used should be
one In which only one city, village or town 10 inter-
the directors claim the only effect would be that
cities, counties. villages and towns would each DO
compelled to erect independently bridges across d.
vision streams, instead Of uniting and sharing the
penses OF structure properly common burden. II
Throughout the state Of bridges and other in
ich there common interests In plRoc Of adj
eonssruosion and arrangements This was not l
think the intention the constitutional provision.
So long as the purpose for wh,cn the public money
to bs used Is one Of those egtims.e objects Of public
expenditure II Is not affected, In my opinion, By the
TACT that some other CITY 10 also interested therein
Of New York ana Brooklyn 10 not sucn as 10 create
pow political divmon OF the state; nut IL is pro-
vision Tor securing joint action In common work by
the Two municipalities
Tne second objection. that there has already been
expended the bridge more than So, 000. 900, do
Ponds upon The proposition that the thira section Of
ture for tho bridge, including the moneys already
used before the passage oil the ac TO tho sum indi-
ION, by the language Of The section. which Is as
iollows:-"Provided, however, that The whole
S''' sh'
clearly future in its general Specification, and
.n.s y was not used n this statute with,
appears from the phrase employed In the twelfth
seclon 10 tho effect that the completed bridge shall
paid" be 'sby them for construction.
am therefore OF the opinion that in the third sec
ton OF tho law tho nnitatlon refers only 10 expend
lures thereafter 10 BE- made BY tho two cities
The third and last objection, that the bridge not
be completed for s. ooO Ia addition to the amount
expended before The passage OF the law OF 1875, de-
upon sne ina. nc INV o
only IN case this amount shall be sufficient 70 fully
conf lete the bridge.
IN the obligation OF the cities TO make tho Indicated
payments. That obligation Is unqualified except in
Nsyu ,0AAt, -Aput
10 be paid By both cities shall exceed So 600 o00
and that the city OF New York shall be called
to pay more than 81 900 In any year. Subject
to those limitations alone the city Of New York Is
thorlxed ana required 10 lis bonds called for
BY the trust ees oil the bridge.
II will be noticed that the second section or the law
OF 1875 gives the Board OF Trustees iu exclusive
n n sd s
alone are 10 pass upon the question whether or not
Their plans can be carried out u. cost Of less than
by any law known 10 me 10 entertain jurisdicticn of
an inquiry on this point
The Limitation In the third section ia not Ia terms
upon OF the bridge bus the amount 10 be
paid by the two cities. rhc reason Is obvious While
It might be dfHculL II not impossible, Tor tho city
officials having no control over tho affairs Of the
bridge determine Its PROBABLE COST II would always
be perfectly simple them amounts
she cities had actually paid. THIS therefore. was the
limitation adopted. Tho exclusive control Of she
sracson beng sis 70 the 1us.sss Inc c,:s sr: d,
S. 600 shall have been paid by thsm Sat that
point the trustees lose their jurisdiction, not over the
BRIDGE but 10 demand more money, aud at that point
only tho two cities refuse TO make their respective
payments
The duty imposed by law upon the trustees Of the
bridge to produce specific structure which cannot
Of the river to the otner nor in height for IL must
conform 10 the OF the act OF Congress
sate Beyond question Unless it should appear, there.
FORE beyond possibility OF dispute that there were
several methods OF meeting ihe requirements. and
thai trustees had selected involving expen-
d,sure Of than $4,000, 000 whie another equally
good might have been pursued at cost o. less than
S. 200, 000 much doubt whether II would be proper
for body possessing right OF supervision to quss
lion tho propriety OF the procedure.
do not understand that any such state Of facts 10
either conceded or claimed 10 exist. Tho papers
present no question AZ 10 tho entire good faith and
no reason is shown Tor surprising that any greater ex
penss has been incurred than Is actually necessary.
M s ~ @ Ea1s a.
turo has authorized the trustees OF the bridge TO take
proceedings for the acquisition Of additional lands in
the city OF New York. and has and required
tina trustees TO incur expenses additional TO any
which would have been incurred had mot this new
"a. previous gran. Of power Would lead to the con-
cusion that tho trustees alone are TO pass on The
question OF cost, and tho city officers merely
that there not paid from the city treasures moro
than So. 100000.
upon the Cities anu commanding them to pay are sx
Pilot, unqualified, except as havo stated and I'M
The undertaking. or OF the provision which the law
makos Tor II, there cannot, II to mo. be much
real doubt al 10 what the law requires OF tho Two
cities
CONCLUDING REMARKS
In conclusion. Mr.. Strahan addresses his objections
to your honorable Board. with request that y will
exercise power Of restricting tho issue Of bonds
conferred by section OF chapter $50 Of the Laws Of
1884, and section liz OF chapter 335 Of the Laws OF
lS73
AS to this would say that chapter 5S3 Of the Laws
of 1871, the same relates city oil New
York, repealed by the 10Th section or chapter
335 Of tho Laws OF 1879 and the liz section OF this
last law the present charter authorizes homer
able Beard 10 only with reference 20 such bonds
- were then april 80, 1879 authorized BY law 70 be
issued.
The bonds which are required Tor the bridge au-
thorizod Dy q law passed Two years later than tho
charter, and would not, therefore, como within Tho
provisions OF ehor Of the laws cited by Mr.. Strnhan
would further state that by the terms OF the law
of 1875 the rcqusion Of the trustees directed
not 10 your honorable Board. but 10 tho Mayer and
the Comptroller and by the third section the city Is
only authorized but required to issue bonds.
II any further authority - necessary, which much
doubt 10 the authority Of the local legislative BODY
tho Common Council This authority nnd sup
piled the 9th day Of May, 1876, when the Board Of
Aldermen passed ordinance auth orizng the Comp
troier bonds Tor the purposes bridge
tho iu amount OF 81 &C., 666 g. and prescribing in
detail exactly how the bonds should DO signed sealed
and count orsgnsd.
am therefore, of the opinion that your honorable
Board Is without jurisdiction In the matter; that
under the law oil 1875 and she ordinance OF Nay O,
1876 The right OF the bridge trustees 10 recsivs the
action Is the duty OF the Comptroller to the
b3nds aud pay the money 10 tho amount OF the requi
of tho trustees TO the extent OF 81 666, 656 81,
under act OF 1875. Respectfully yours,