New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-03-18
.JTDGE GAYNOR'S INJUNCTION.

Judge GlynOrS lnJunctOH loIoiuuih1 ''''
CARRYING out of the agreement made between
the New East River Bridge Commissioners ana
the East River Bridge Company for the purchase
of the property and franchise OF the latter VIII
have an unfortunate effect II 1t delays the be-
ginning Of an enterprise OF the first Importance
In the development Of the two cities 1t VIII
not have the effect of interfering with 1t perma-
ncntly. for the bridge can he built entirely indie
pcndently of the plans and property of the COM
pany What Judge Gaynor proposes Is modi-
fication Of the agreement entered into, for or
course, he does not deny the right Of the Com
missioners to make the purchase. The priv
ilrge Of doing this was expressly conferred by
the statute creating the Commission. The Judge
objects TO certain provisions Of the agreement,
and grants his injunction only on condition that
these are not changed. 1t Is probable that the
Commissioners will enter On appeal from this
ruling though they have not yet had time to
agree on any definite course Of action.
That they have acted In entire good faith In
the course they have taken will be disputed by
no one Equally 1t will be admitted that they
are in earnest in their purpose TO build bridge
speedily, and 10 make 1t as useful as possible to
the public at large. In deciding reluctantly. as
they did. TO acquire the franchise OF the COM
Dany they consulted economy, since a site for the
work other than across the lines selected by
the companys engineers would add TO the
cost of the bridge; and they also consulted the
public interest, because it WAS the best and
most convenient location that the company had
pitched The two points emphasized by
Judge Gaynor are that a portion OF tie amount
paid to the company was for its approach on
the Ncw-YOrl; side Of the river. where In fact,
It had done nothing and 30 had nothing 10 sell.
and that the stipulation In reference to elevated
railroad tracks gives an exclusive privilege for
the running Of trains across the bridge. which
would be- worth many millions of dollars. one
Of these points is of small Importance; the other
the Judge seems 10 cxaggerate out OF due pro-
portions Into his long opinion he Introduces
several stump-spccchcs- n habit which cannot
be commended II Is n little difficult, accord
ingly. to follow his argument. but the conclu-
sions which he reaches are tolerably clear.
though he plainly assumes too much in saying
that the clause In reference tc elevated railway
tracks will. "of course" Do stricken out There
are two parties 10 the agreement. and both must
consent TO any changes In II. Independently OF
this clause. 1t is known TO be the intention Of
the Commissioners TO provide two tracks for
elevated roads. as well as four for surface or
trolley cars.
We hope that :he legal controversy will not
be permitted 10 interfere seriously with the
work OF building the bridge. The plans for the
structure are well I'm hand. and the consent Of
the War Department TO n bridge 100 feet high
has been secured. Contracts are about TO be
made for borings to determine the character Of
the rock where the foundations OF the towers
are TO he placed This work should go forward
without delay. The Commissioners OF the new
bridge have proceeded carefully and with the
advice OF two competent lawyers thus far. They
have met with the support Of the public In n
gratifying degree. Ar Injunction at this stage
of affairs Is an unfortunate incident Let us
hope that it will prove nothing more