The New York herald., 1879-03-26

to be public highway and. for the purpose of com
Reting it, authorized & the two cities to sdysnes fur
provided for the application OF the income OF the
bridge after its complstiSa All the provisions revision.
looked to completion OF the bridge and no limita-
ton was placed upon the cost thereof
AccuRATE ESTIMATES IMPOSSIBLE.
The act of 1875 is entitled IAN act, among other
things, providing for the completion and manage
ment Of the bridge" The whole act has in view the
completion Of the bridge and its management IN, after
peted and managed hereinafter provided. for and
ON behalf Of the cities that the plan
control and direction OF the trustees that it
shall be public work. to be constructed
ss as MS Be sansass BY
two cities in the proportion mentioned ana then u
shall nIi' not % exceed ss.ooo.utc" There is no re.
sas''I'i. mate the cost Of the entire bridge or
that they shall net enter upon the construction
thereof unless the expense can be kept within
$sOOO00O. II 1t had been intended that the trustees
should not enter upon the completion OF the bridge
without first determining that i'll no event it should
cost than TINT sum a matter OF such con-
trolling importance would have been expressed
in plain and explicit language. When the entire lesis
laion upon the subject is considered the inference
is not warranted that the Legislature meant that the
structure then partially completed. upon which up
ward of $500O.000 had been expended. should be
Abandoned unless the expense of its completion
could be kept TO the sum mentioned. The construc-
o. .ae n the @as world The dcuItes that
might have to be encountered could not be
foreseen. 1t was work requiring some
years for its completion, and the fluctuations In the
price of material and labor could not be anticipated.
Another uncertain element in the cost of the bridge
was the interest ON all sums advanced by the two
cities from time to time. which to be added to
the cost and ono could forecast the amount of
interest which would thus accumulate by necessary
of tile work was such that it could not have boon
expected that it could be let by contract.
NEW YORK MUST COMPLETE HER BARGAIN.
These considerations show that 1t would have been
impossible to estimate in advance the precise or
even proximate cost Of the bridge, and yet if the
contention of the defendant be sound if the trustees
had first made estimate bringing the cost within
the sum named. and they or their successors had
entered upon the construction of the bridge and If
it had subsequently unexpectedly and unavoidably
turned out that the cost would exceed that sum by
have been unauthorized and illegal. The trustees.
disbursjng the moneys in good faith. would have
been personally liable and the bridge itself would
have been unlawful structure A construction
reaching such a result cannot be the correct one.
The Legislature intended that the bridge should be
completed. The work was of such an exceptional
character that it did not know. and no one could
know, what it would cost. and hence no limit
was placed upon its cost. It was probably sup
posed that the $S 600 900 would be sufficient to
plete the bridge and that was the amount appro-
prated made available for the trustees. 1t was
cities and was constant admontion to them to keep
the expenses within that sum; but they were to go
with the construction OF the bridge
and authorized to draw for that If needed;
and when they had drawn up to that limit they
Legislature could then authorize more money to be
paid by the two cities or could appropriate sufficient
not that the bridge should not S. 000,000
that it should not be constructed If it was to
cost more. but that the two cities should
examined the authorities cited the argument upon
the point last discussed and find nothing in any of
them having any important bearing, and nence they
are not referred to here. Having thus given this
the careful examination its magnitude requires
feel Confident in the conclusion that the order ap
1aI frnv Ia iu1f far6a abnnl 1,a affir oil
The dissenting opinion ofSJndge Folger discusses
only point-tiat the language of the proviso
in the act of May, 1875, is q restriction on the
Of the bridge. but discusses it at considerable
length and elaboration of reascping and argument.
PRESIDENT MURpHy's vIEws-wHAT HE SAYS
OF THE DECISION AND THE BRIDGE ENTER
PRISE.
President Henry c. Murphy. of the Board of Bridge
Trustees, in speaking OF the favorable decision Of
the Court of Appeals in the bridge litigation. said
last evening to reporter of the HERALD that there
could be longer any delay in the pay
ment of New Yorks quota Of s1.OOO.Ooo. The
decision is final and ends all differences in the
matter. Comptroller Kelly hads early favored the
bridge enterprise, but he had been controlled by
others in his opposition to the issue Of further
bonds. and he had held that the question of hmita-
ton should be settled by the The decision of
the Court of Appeals is that the mandamus
compelling him to issue the bonds must
be grarted. and 1t Is no longer optional
with him. He is required. of course. to obey tho
law. The Court Of Appeals have had the matter
under consideration for month. and have taken
all the time they wanted to fully discuss the ques
Court" said Mr.. Murphy. 1.-THE other side brought
up some constitutional questions that had not been
raised Be before and am glad they did so for this
and everything in relation to the matter
HAS the progress of the work been materially in
terered with by the refusal Of the New York author
ities to pay the calls for money last year?"
"Yes. Our calculation last summer was that we
would have the bridge completed-in running order
year. But this refusal of the New York
authorities to pay the money when called for threw
completed till 1881. When about eight months ago
we were compelled to discontinue had more men
mcnt OF tho work. The work was more advanced than
before. because before that time had to get
ready and to hang the cables. But when that Was
accomplished we could have gone on and suspended
the roadway and completed the approaches. Last
August we advertised for proposals. and received bids
from four Of the best iron manufactures in this
country, both in point Of financial re-
constructing. When the New York authorities
objected to issuing further bonds on the ground
that there appeared to be limitation in the act Of
the authority OF the trustees to expend money,
didn't feel authorized to give out the contracts
for the iron and timber work nor was it prudent to
when will you award tho contracts to which You
refer!"
"The contracts remain In abcyancc till this time.
II the contracts had been awarded when the bids
received the work could have been going all
winter. Of course all that time has been lost and
the progress of the bridge retarded just so much.
The amount expended in the bridge work is about
$10.0O00O The interest this amount invested
for eight months is $500 900. which has remained
remunerative for that time while the work has been
stayed. This is great loss of revenue to the
bridge"
"whcn will work be resumed on the bridge?"
"ln y short time. cannot fix the date, but we are
all ready to go ahead on the approaches. The yards
full OF material and the Mt hand. have
not any of tho trustees since the de-
cision of the Court of Appeals was. announded.
No special meeting Of the Beard has0bccn called.
Our regular meetings are held the first Monday of
each month"; II may be that IL will be necessary to
advertise again for proposals for the iron and timber
for tho superstructure. the parties who bid last
summer may not at this time see ht to make the
same proposals.
THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE.