New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-04-29

use of elevated railroads. with suitable termi MAJ
facilities in Network CITY Mavsas the purchase
of part Of the rights OF the bridge S,pction OF
having adGptsd P1s to
there is any ground for the continuation tnae .sS
agreement to construct the bridge upon t"e "oop'S"
p' 2 The Charges of fraud may be dismissed from
the case. ,,.,,, an this subtect
are character ana are reee hv no
tanned by sc mt of 4r Judge at Special er
and the counsel for the plaintiff in this court sateI
orally that he no na mpreprey Of in
serting In legal opinion pleading uhIounuea Oh"
unsupported charges OF this course in
this respect is properly the subject OF severe or'
csm. ..,o.h.r IN. constr,ic-
ton is subject to the criticism that 1t causes
waste of the public funds or property OF the t~o
From what has already been said It Is apparent n
that the clause of the contract IN references ~ ss
is NOT a waste of property Those things are but
parts of the plan Of the bridge and as nad az u,
the construction that it grants an exclusive PRIV
ilege to any corporation. SO far RON rais,hs s h
case prove directly the contrary Two propositions
were made by the bridge company TO ihe sccsned
use Of the railroad tracks Each CONTAINED pro-
pany should be permitted to operate It's trains
across the bridge but also provided that Sthtp
elevated
cross the bridge Each Of these propositions were
rejected and the one finally accepted and embodied
soe sne Seitber the dge company any elevated
railroad company has any rights IN tne h co hrdes
sftnr ,ts completion and there is nothing before
the court indicating any Intention on ,ne par ,ha ="
70 contract with any corporation to operate
a railroad on the bridge. and, as ] nave already
tSe Srds se' UNA" finally Completed VIM pss; under
the control and MANAGEMENT Of other onicias o,o.-
ZION WHEELER there is anything in the nature OF
waste Of public funds in the agreement 10 10 PAY PAY
extinguishment OF the right of the bridge COMPANY
TO construct bridge No. north OF Srand,sst Inc
worIh less appears to upon the assumption tnat
the charter Of the bridge company had been Tor or
feted. This assumption has no supp o Ear r" as Il
reh TO bridge No l. The statutes require the
company TO begin the nn Which SL assent was
given to them by the Federal authorities, and 10
begin the on 9s b anssns no Of bridge No.
to public The ONLY reference when t tne sa 70
ute makes 10 the future by reason OF ia rtasntS
section and refers exclusively to bridge NO. = ,,
The learned Judge at Special Term oyerruled TN, tns
the charter OF the bridge company could be de.
sd forfeited only BY Tdy or that Of tms
the Attorney General in the name OF the people OF
the State.
MIscoNCEPTIoN OF THE CASE.
The decision OF the learned judge who. heard the
case at Special Term proceeded In this oranch OF
the case upon a misconcepon OF the Facts IN reia-
,,on 70 the location OF bridge No. He appears 70
have understood that the bridge company had usilI
nitey located bridge No !. but had not ip Sst
No 2 was located. the bridge company possessed
no exclusive right TO construct II upon any parcu-
lar defined line 1t is alleged in the complaint
nor does 1t appear from the PLAINTIFFS atidayts;;
that bridge had not been Il ns pro oo
nc sition 10 the motion The aridavt of Mr. Cor
nell. the engineer Of the bridge companys treats
both bridges in this respect alike. lie tesunes ina,
he ..br,dges and approaches had been located and
that the Secretary Of War had given his consent to
d 5ne S0"r map of bridge No which he wa:
copy OF the one approved by the secretary "
ma ME- a to ss that bridge no only had been
located The affidavit. however. states that plans
non Council Of New-York and that tina; body had
given consent TO the construction OF the or'oseS
attached 10 Mr. Cornelrs AFFIDAVIT is detailed
statement Of the plans and Gcs1n Oh 0t ths
The piers and towers on the Brooklyn side ,, are
in the s sSff S9"oasS BY G1s on
York sid. in the block bounded by scanned jack
tends to Grand-st. and across Grand-st. to con-
meet s'rt' with bridge 10 between Delaney and Riv,
statute requiring these bridges 70 be located by
the purpose OF this motion We must assume that
the fact Is that bridge No was located In sucn
Win bridge No / But are also Of the opinion
that Il bridge No had no; been located BY the
companv the statute definitely locates II so far as
I, relates 10 the contract under consideration by
requiring 1t to be In junction at the New-fork END
with bridge No. l.
II became important, therefore, for the Commits
sioners having located their bridge TO exunguisn
no. north OF Cirand-st and the evidence does no,
permit the conclusion that in agreeing to purchase
and acquire that right the Commissioners pur-
OH al "A worthless franchise.
Upon the question Of the propriety OF locating the
line Of the bridge in such manner as to make
franchise little need be said The reasons for mat
fully set forth in the aiiidavits OF MI Sa,rd
missioners The facts there stated VIII convince
any impartial mind that the action Of the Commits minis
Judgment and solely In the public interests
NO REASON FOR INTERFERING
II Is sufficient say, in closing an opinion that has
already exceeded proper length that both the Local
ton OF the bridge and the sum 10 be paid TO the
bridge company were mattess resting solely within
the sound Judgment and determination OF the Com
missoners and their opinion is not subject TO the
review OF the courts unless there has been waste
before US that would, on that ground justify us In
interfering with their action.
The order should be reversed, with so costs and
disbursements, and the motion denied. with costs.
commissioners. under the power which the statute
gives them to purchase the charter Of the East
part payment for that charter by binding them
selves &c construct the bridge in particular form.
/ think the statute contemplated a purchase for
money. and that only But this view need not pre-
vent me from concurring in the result reached by
agreement as to the form OF the structure is not
enforceable by any one. The presence IL harmless
and affords no ground for judicial interference at
this time. because is trying to enforce it, In
deed, II Is harmless for another reason. The Com
missorers have unquesonabe powers to build the
bridge In the stipulated form, Independent Of any
agreement the subject While, therefore I con-
cur With my brethren all other points and agree
that the preliminary injunction should be vacated |
deem II proper TO add these remarks lest should
seem to sanction the idea that the agreement has
the effect OF comforting any right upon the East
River Bridge Company so far II provides for
elevated railroad accommodations of q particular
kind on the bridge.