New-York tribune., 1879-03-26
POINTS OF TIE DECISION.

| ALBANY, March 25.-Jhe opinion OF the
! Court Of Appeals in the Brooklyn Bridge case was
handed down to-day Tho majority opinion is written
by Judge Earl and Is concurred IN by Judges Rapallo
Andrews and Danforth. II decides that NewYork must
pay toward the construction OF the bridge the amount
which Brooklyn claimed she is bound to pay The title
of the the People REL Henry c. Murphy against
John Kelly, Controller OF New York. There was a dis
senting opinion read by Judge FOger, in which Chief
Judge Church and Judge Miller concurred. The majority
opinion recites the history the bridge and dsposes
OF point raised To the effect that the proper consent
given by the Secretary OF War The Court holds
that such consent properly given. Referring 10 the
allegations that the act Of 1879 unconstitutional
! the opinion says:
After the passage that act the trustees mentioned
therein appointed. All the private stock OF The
Bridge Company purchased provided in the acts,
and The company was dissolved The trustees proceeded
with the construction OF the bridge and received Tor
that purpose nom the two cities gpward Of S2OO0OO0,
and IN SIS they made upon the City Of Ncw-York two
calls OF 500 900 each which are the subject Of the pres,
| cat controversy Ihe act OF ls.3 Is n0i' as
| claimed by the appellant. in conflict with tho
constitutional provision above cited u not the
purpose or effect OF the aet t. make the Cly OF New
York stocRholder IN the Bridge Company. or 10 cause
IT TO loan any money or credit to such company Ii was
tue purpose of the act 10 eXtngush the company aud
vest III its property i'll the Two cities for public pur-
| pose. The cities aready owned most OF tic stock and
| property Of tho company, aud way was pSOvdcd by
winch tney could become the owners OF the balance Of
the property. II cannot, therefore, well be he'd, as
claimed by The learned counsel for the appellants,
that what is meant 6y ,,,,;y city -, purpose is
|
| its. There could be no good reason for such
Limitation. It could be no worse for city TO incur
debt Tor city purpose outside OF the city limits than
for within such limits, and there Is just as mHch
reason for allowing 1t 10 be incurred IN the one
IN the other The Cities OF EcwYork ana Brooklyn
Intimately connected Ia many ways; by business social
and coluuerciaI ties Thousands who do business IN
the one city do business the other The port VI New
hr,n /, To- be consruc,e ed aud The commerce IRON all
parts OF the world when flows into tuat port is dis
! charged each side Of the river To bridge such
water. separating such cities, must he city pur
pose each cy. IL has always been the policy OF tAl3
State for two towns separated by "a stream Of
| water to bridge the stream at joint expense, and
the construction OF sucn bridge Is a town
purpose Of each town. II me LEGISLATURE c9uid
lor the construction Uf tins bridge, then 1t could not
| bridges over streams dividing thcin. lhat IL was
utended in the Constitution 20 prohioit towns from IN
curing d,bt Tor such purpose Will not II IS Dehe'ed
1t Is NOS perccvod What purpose the language
the OF 1879, insert d. Whatever the purpose
was has bearing upon the lues ions
| iSS,G 10 tne two cities as tenants in common,
| each owning share prOpOrtOnate to the
money cont.iGu cd ~ 1t. 30 far as g., l eau eau
act without anyway npairng any ot the essential
provisions Of ACT affecting the purpose to be ac-
| romplisEed by it. therefore. having nothing say
aboe wisdom OF the legislation uudor consideration.
confident in the conclusion that tie construction
of the bridge is city purpose or eHch city and that
city incur debt Tor the same aud that the act
1875 not IA conflict with any provision OF the Con-
| stitutlOn.
NOT AN OBSTRUCTION TO NAVIGATION.
After the passage of the act OF 1875 1t longer
nece ssay construct the bridge as in no degree to
obstruc free common navigation OF tho river
reoured by the act Of 1867 At the OF passage
Of the Of 1875 plan OF the bridge approved under
public act Of Congress. had for solne years been
adopted and acted upOn That plan showed precisely
whatextent the bridge would Obsruct navigation upon
the river and than SJ000000 had been expended
upon the bridge The plan and character Of the bridge
must be assumed 10 have been known to the Iag Stature
ha nj II In tgnInn
or the bridge then IN course o construction, and the
trustees TO be appointed under that act are required TO
complete that bridge There was then legislative ap-
prova and sanction Of the bridge then being con.
siruced according plan prescribed by tao act OF
Conlress and thereafter the trustees were required
only conform 10 the plan thus adopted and approved
IN the construction IL the bridge. so long there
departure rom such plan the structure could not be
assailed as obstruction 10 navigation. What Is thus
| sanctioned DOtl by the state ana Natioaal Leg
| slatures cannot he Nuisance Or otherwise
unlawful There Is allegation on the part II de
ienuani tna there has been any departure from the ap
proved plan in the construction OF tAe bridge except n
one particular, and that is as to the guys He
alleges that guys or stays have Dten ana are attached To
span OF the bridge winch hunG below tne bottom
chords thereof There is no allegation ta these guys
or stays are to become peaneht part OF lhc bridge
but used only seems TO De conceded in tho
construction of the DIdge aud 1t may well be doubted
whether auch temporary Appliances arc Wtl tho CON
ton prescribed by the Secretary OF War But II tGese
gnys or stays uuau hOrzrd ucD departure ON the
approved plan would not justify tho defendant in with
holding the payment OF ths money. Ine cuty Is not
there IL departure from the plan IN the construction
OF the bridge. lie Is to pay the money when properly
bridge properly apply and expend It, Ii they DO not
discharge their duty If they commit breach OF trust,
or If they disregard the plan in any material matter the
DEFENDANT one OF the trustees can INTO the proper
courts Federal and compel an observance OF
their duties and conformity to the plan.
The CHARGE OF EXIRAYAGASCE
The defendant also alleges Justification OF his
refusal TO pay, tnat the trustees are extrayagant
in the expenditure OF the money iDtrusted 10
them and that the bridge will be useless and unsafe
when completed upon the present plan These matters
Iafa "a arafts 1ba arc
appointed pursuant TO laW To dlsDurse the money. In
its disbursement there may be certain amount or eX
trayagance wastefnness flowing from misjudgment
or folly for winch there s no remedy But tney be
carried such extent as to be reckless and criminal
a Court OF Equity, upon proper application To It may
restrain and control the trustees TO prevent tho waste OF
nnorI of Trustees and Ss such has oppUrtmnitics OF
knowing how the money Is expended III he cannot, as
member OF the board. prevent its waste, he may take
preventive action in the courts but Le refuse to
pay the money: Tne money thus pad may not
doctrine that the custodian OF pubic money, directed 10
pay 1t to persons charged with the duty Of expcnding
IT, could withhold payment because OF the unprecedented
extrayagance OF those appointed By law to nd H.
Tho issue 10 whether the bridge w be useless ana
unsafe could be tried IN this proceeding The Lesis
laure directed the bridge to be completed and has
sanctioned the plans adopted lie one ControleD
bridge will be useless and unsafe or because 1t Will, In
| fact, to "a large extent be so
HE SUPPOSED LIMITATION.
But the most question is yet to be considered
The defendant claims under the act of 1875 the
trustees had power TO proceed with the construction
of the bridge and to call for any money from the two
| cities and that the cities had no power to pay any
money to the trustees unless the lridge could be com
petci for than the sum Of toOOO,OOO care
u consideration OF the whole subject mas cohstalned
us TO different view OF that act. The Legislature
mas at times apparently regarded this bridge as of
great importance to the cles and has appeared 10
be soil ilOus about its completion. The act OF
1878 il entitled. An act among other things providing
for cOmplrtOn and management or the bridge lht
whole as in view the completion OF the bridge and
a., mana cement after COmlle IL Is provided that
II shall completed and managed hereinafter pro-
yled, for and behalf or the CiiIes, that
the plan and construct. on thereof shall be under
~ IL Lr1L.t. IL