The New York herald., 1879-03-06
NEW YORK HERALD THURSDAY MARCH G. ls7a-TRPLE SHEET
NEW YORK AND BROOKLYN BRIDGE.

To THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD:-
On the argument point was made by appellant
and stated in the brief his behalf that the act Of
1875 in contravention of the constitution. i'll
that 1t provided for the city of New York holding
stock in the old Bridge Company. This suggestion
was not made in either of the courts below. and is
founded on misapprehension OF the reading and
meaning Of the statutes.
Section II OF the amendment to article s of the
constitution is:-"No county. city. town village
shall hereafter give any money property loan
its money credit to or in aid of any individual,
association corporation. become directly in
directly the owner of stock in or bonds of any as
sociaton corporation"
The scheme Of the acts of 1874 and 1875 to ac-
qure property for public useto wit. the bridge.
land and materials-and not to hold own stock in
private corporation.
The first section of the act of 1875 provides for the
dissolution of the company and the bridge becoming
public work when two-thirds of the private stock
should be retired. provided by the act of 1874.
The act of 1874 provided for two things. First, for
change in the directors of the company, by making
all such directors appointees OF the two cities and
second, for the retirement of the private stock
The last was to be done follows:-"The directors
to be appointed under the provisions OF this act
on behalf of the cities or Brooklyn and New York
are hereby author zei to purchase the rights of any
such private stockholders in said company y
and to provide for the payment therefor upon such
terms as they may be able to agree upon" win thus
be seen that the private stock was not to
or held by either of the cities, but by the Bridge
Company itself. Az matter OF fact all such private
stock was so purchased and certificates of the in
therefor. This indebtedness of the company was
subsequently paid by the two cities when they took
but never for an instant did either city
purchase or hold any stock of the Bridge
Company after the constitutional amendment took
effect and no money pad by either city under the
act OF 1875 until long after the private stock had
ceased to exist. nor under that act could any such
advance have been made until after that event.
1t further urged that because under the act OF
1885, the cities money appropriated to pay debts
Of the old company it gift or loan instead of
in aid OF a corporation. 1t neither, 1t SIM
ply an appropriation of the money OF the cities to
acquire property for public purposes the property
OF the bridge was trust fund for the benefit OF its
creditors.
The Legislature could obliterate the corporation,
but it could not, and believe would not, deprive the
creditors OF that corporation OF their right to pay
men from the assets Hence to enable the two cities
to acquire the bridge 1T was proper and necessary
that they should discharge the liens equtably i'm
posed thereon
All moneys paid to a corporation in one sense
in its aid. Money is generally good aid either to
corporation Individual; but the test of the
violation of the constitution Is whether the money
was given to aid the corporation or for the acqaisi
ton OF property for public purpose Assume that
within the corporate limits Of city there lay plank
road or turnpike owned by corporation "a fire.
quent III of the smaller ctes and that
it was deemed wise to turn such road into regular
public street open for free to the citizens The
city could not acquire such ROAD without payment
Could it be urged that because such ment was to
be made to a corporation which had ISSUED stock
the city could never acquire the land and the Legis
lature extinguish the private franchise? To deny
this right and power would give to corporate prop
erty sanctty against the right Of eminent DOMAIN
enjoyed by no other property.
1t will be seen that the whole scheme of the act
of 1875 not to hold stock in loan money to
corporation but simply to acquire certain property
to be used for public purpose; the corporation
dissolved This certainly valid exercise of power.
The purpose u public and city purpose for
which the municipality might incur debt. A.
NEW YORK, March 5, 1870