New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-01-08

CAUSTIC oPINION-A WASTE OF MONEY
WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW
The attempt to steal 81 ,0CO, 600 from the Treas
urv of the City of Brooklyn through the pur-
chase of the stock and plant of the Long Island
Water Supply Company received a blow yesterday
from which 1t will with difficulty recover, and IL
is doubtful if Mayor Chaplin will, even IN the
end be able TO complete the deal. The case has
excited great deal of attention among lawyers
and taxpayers, and the decision of Justice Bart
lett, who heard the arguments in the case on
Tuesday was looked forward to with great In
terest yesterday morning The prevailing oplil-
ion among lawyers that the temporary IN
junction granted on December % by Justice
Cullen, on the application of William Zlegler' pend
ing the arguments on an order TO the Mayor
Controller and Auditor, to show cause why the
Injunction should not stand against them until
the case could be tried. would be made permanent.
They were right. EARLY yesterday morning justice
Bartlett handed down decision, ordering ina!
the temporary injunction be continued until the
trial of the action brought by William Ilegler
against Alfred c. Chaplin, Theodore +. jackson
and Thomas b. Rutan. as Mayor, Controller and
Auditor of the City of Brooklyn, TO prevent the
purchase of the Long Island Water Supply Com
pany
A FORCIBLE OPINION.
Justice Bartlett files an able opinion remark
able for its calm judicial wording. but for that
reason all the more cutting, because OF It's sharp
remarks about the case. The text OF the opinion
is follows:
on December % 1880, preliminary injunction
was granted this suit By Mr.. Jusdce Cullen restrain
ing the Mayor, Auditor Controller ot the cit1hOf
BrooKlyn from purchasing the property ana iancnises
the Long Island Water supply Company OF any VI
its stock bOrds, and from carrying out q contract
which they lad MADE for tue purchase thereof. ne
present application is motion TO continue lhat III
junction full and efiect until the case can 1e
tried upon its me r Tine PaH MaHor E centroer or
Auditor with any wl misconduct but alleging 5nas
the proposed expenditure would amount " waste
of the money of the city of lroOklyn .. - ,n
The papers read his behalf show. among oher
and belief but positively one is that person who
claims 400 OF the 1000 siarts OF lLie stooH
the same or the bulk thereof about fifteen months ago
for $40 share. The other is that the president oi te
filed with the Board Of Assessors. stated the Naiuc VI
the said stock to b. 81 shire In December; to'T ~
behalf OF the city OF Brooklyn 70 buy the properly au
franchises of the company at the rate OF 200 so
besides assuming two CAGES, aEEIeEdlllS 9"OV'
900: and he thereupcn institutes I'm, action r. s,,D
think his complaint and the ai1daVlts Teaa III SUP
port thereof make prima 1acle case OF propon
expenditure which would be wa,tenl IN the sense gn III
case the defendants have met on the present motion
principally by aihdavtN tending 10 SLOW tIHr resn
to the advantage Of the city, Assuming such TO De
the property could not have been bought ana SnOmdu
not have been bought fcr sum very mIcn d. oT nci
imam stipulated To lie palG. 40 NO
imena ~ GetorIhne Iris Quesion on afldavts in ad
Vance OF ths tal but IT, proper disposition OF ne
non ,hc nronondergnc, Of proof contained in the
pspcrS he.ore ne. Il docs n seem 70 me thaI INC
70 The nfcr1cc OF wostcful expenditure arising our
Of the di,pry between the price 10 be aa y the
city and thr value Of the stock a. evidenced ny ue
actual sac Of mos pi w. al ,y - ttcment Of the
president o 7hr corporation that Il was worm oN>
81 >'se no ,on-cr ago than last NAY: v,b ,bo
.ft.f ana frtncNloe~
are worth f. hsn the purchase prce' Can upyn
o. the de4ii, OF N, negotiations ana transaction, When
ia them - toe conclusion that they ought to pay
tlan tsey have given on that subject lhlmK inc ne
r>'tYig nri'r already granted rhouu I t, nr,
forcc until AL these matters can be inquired mo upo"
T,cc view render it unnecessary TO pass upon the
v,roo. quc>t Of constitutional law when were werc
ms I'd in me Arguments OF counsel II IS proper
t. s1a , n}T y' The 'T bower on the part Of the
a. onir.' T. purchase under the Annexation act
Tstior ~ me uciiod Of two years during which the
ot, might lave exercised the power Of eminent conan
nro nG .rs .nd determination Of the action is grant
ed. with cost, 10 abide the event
rAXpAYERs WELL SATISFIED.
Fv?!. huacs' man and taxpayer In the CITY
OF Brno%lvn will breathe more freely for That
oa,niou." remarked a lawyer yesterday after read
ire il. This seemed to he the general feeling
'-l2 first great point in the overthrow of the big
III I for plander was gained, and, although the
Gcci ion Itself had beer ancipaed,th pithy words
of the opinion as a surprise, for 1t had been
generally supposed that in case where he was
in no way Obliged 10 pass upon either the law or
the facts, but simply 4 say whether any Of the
uojnts rliscd by the plaintiff on their face
Of such weight TO justify tie injunction the
ustice would not score any Of the defendants.
CorD.rafinn Counsel jerks said on Tuesday in
his argument that tie iulc as laid down by the
Court of Appcals on the subject Of injunctions
restraining executive officers from performing acts
intrustcd 70 their discretion, was that injunctionS
should not be granted unless there was evidence
Of fraud somewhere. If this is good law 1t IS
evident that the court THINKS there scheme
10 defraud the city or the part of somebody Mr..
13cnks's remark that all the plaintiffs statements
-xvc.p simoly upon information and belief IS
abruptly IL posed Of by the remark =" The papers
read on his behalf show, among other things two
facts which are stated, not information and
lelicf bat positively" Justice Bartlett then
takes up the fact Of the purchase of Staples, "who
claims CONTROL the opinion with
delicate irony says. lie thinks the fact that the
stock sod fifteen months ago at $40 a Share was
sworn to be worth only S2j share May 81 Ii
rather inconsistent with its sale in December at
$500 a share, besides the assumption of 5000
Of mort cages.
DEFINING ''WASTE."
The next point he makes, that of what con
stit waste" in the meaning of the statute.
he oIGLned in his question Tuesday To the
Cooperation Counsel: suppose you delegate a
nan 10 buy some property and he gives 81 900
for il, and sou say to him, 1t could have been
bought for $500 1t is not a proper excuse for
him 10 say Mr.. jerks you will make money out
Of it at that Doesn't the question come down
10 that
Mr.. Jerks thought that very likely it did, but
he had gone too far in the other direction to 90
back and change his position Neither he nor the
Mayor in the affidavit presented to the court made
the least attempt show what the property
ought reasonably 10 sell for. They simply made q
tanglc Of figures tending to show that the price