New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-06-05
THE DETECTS IN THE BRIDGE Ell

THE DETECTS IN THE BRIDGE BILi~
II was slipshod piece of work by which
all references to the Brooklyn extension
were not stricken out when the section relat-
ing 10 that matter was expunged from the
Bridge bill. That such was tho intent OF the
Legislature is reasonably clear. That 1t WAS
not done was oversight The question be-
fore the Governor is whether this oversight
should vitiate the entire measure, the provisions
Of which, it is generally agreed, are excellent.
To discuss this question clearly, IL Is necessary
TO see what references to the expunged NTH
section remain in the bill.
IA the bill now stands, the trustees are
authorized = to open suitable avenues OF APP
proach to the Bridge with the consent ot the
Mayor of the city in which the extension or APP
proach is proposed and to borrow money and
issue bonds" for the purposes and In the
manner hereinafter prescribed" They are also
- to operate the railroad over the Bridge and its
avenues of approach and to fix. the fare sub
iect to the provisions Of section five of this
actr; and likewise to acquire by the right of
eminent domain any lands required for the
purposes of the Bridge or the extension there
of " which they may be unable to purchase
This is all there is bearing upon the Brooklyn
extension. On It's face it cannot be denied that
practically unlimited authority is given to the
trustees TO open avenues of approach" or
course the completion of the New-York
terminus, which the bill distinctly provides for,
will not require the purchase or requirement Of
any lands The expression the consent of the
Mayor of the city in which the extension or APP
proach is proposed indicates the possibility. If
not the likelihood, of an extension in Brooklyn.
The phrase subject to the provisions of section
five is without force, the present section five
containing nothing on that subject The
right "to borrow money and issue bonds for
the purposes and in the manner hereinafter pre-
scribed is practically null, as no purposes and
manner are prescribed in the bill, this clause re-
lating solely to the omitted section.
The question recurs upon the intention Of the
Legislature What this was is entirely. plain.
1t was not to build the Brooklyn extension.
There can be no doubt, we think, that if the
measure becomes a law it would be 30 construed
by the courts. Moreover, if the trustees should
proceed under the right conferred to "open
avenues of approach" to build the proposed
railroad to the Brooklyn City Hall, how would
the improvement be paid fort The City of
Brooklyn could not furnish the money. The
trustees could not borrow it. The present in
come of the Bridge would not permit the ex-
pense. 1t is clearly out of the question for such
n work to be undertaken, even If the trustees
were disposed TO undertake 1t. And it must be
remembered that the trustees under the bill will
be the Mayors and Controllers of the two cities.
The benefits to result from tie new law, THE
TRIBUNE has pointed out repeatedly. The
principal ones are the reorganization of the
Board of Trustees and the enlargement of the
New-York terminal facilities. These advant-
ages far more than outweigh any risks that may
be run. While it is greatly to be regretted that
these defects were not remedied. there is DO
danger that the potential rights conferred on
the trustees Will be abused. The bill is not
fatally defective. The Governor can safely
sign it and ought to do 30.