New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-03-17
THEY MAY AND MAY NOT.
erccHASE OF THE UHLMANN CHARTER
PERMITTED; PAYMENT FOR 1T
ENJOINED.
u-nGE GAYNoR's DECISION WILL NOT DELAY THE
WORK OF THE BRIDGE COMMISSION. AS AN
APPEAL WILL BE TAKEN-TE SAYS
THE PRESENT AGREEMENT
MUST BE MODIFIED.

APPEAL WILL BE TAKEN-HE SAYS
THE PRESENT AGREEMENT
MUST BE MODIFIED.
Judge Gaynor yesterday afternoon enjoined
the New East River Bridge Commission, not
from purchasing the Uhlmann Bridge Com
oany's charter. but from paying therefor the
sum of 100000. which price the Commissioners
had decided to pay for the charter.
Despite the injunction, the work on the struct-
IRE will not halt for one day because of the
decision. A Tribune reporter called upon Henry
c. NJ Ingraham, who, with William G.. Choate,
Of New-York, is counsel for the Commission
and asked him how the injunction would affect
the work of construction. He said:
Judge Gaynor's decision will not affect the
work Of construction at all Inasmuch as the
contract was made in good faith and in the in
tercsts Of the public ii would not be right to
allow the matter to rest under the decision of
a motion at Special Term. re matter by whom
made, and it must necessarily follow that either
the Commissioners OF the new bridge or the
East River Bridge Company must appeal from
this order, and get the wisdom of the General
Term upon the subject Meantime there is
raough work on hand that can be done by the
Commission that this injunction does not affect
e keep the Commissioners busy while the in
junction 10 undergoing an appeal. and there
will be no delay occasioned by Judge Gaynor's
decision In the progress of the work. The APP
peal being public matter will probably be
a preferred case. and can be tried at an early
date / have no hesitation in saying that the
injunction will be set aside. and the purchase
Of the charter by the Commission sustained
by the General Term"
The decision allows the purchase of the Hud-
son Avenue or Uhlmann charter, but enjoins
payment for ii: it also decides that the eX-
elusive rights granted to the elevated roads
In the contract must be annulled. The opinion
covers thirteen typewriter pages.
POINTS OF THE DECISION
The following are extracts from the principal
points covered
BY act Chapter 1ol of the Laws of 1892, the Legis-
laiure made Frederick Uhmann and other individ-
uals a body corporate and gave away to such cor
pOIation franchise wiz, permission or Tisht1 10
Brooklyn 10 New-York Instead OF precisely locat-
Ing the line OF the bridges the act provided that
q point at or near Broadway. in the city OF Brook
lyn. across the East River 10 a point or place be-
tween Delaney and Rivington SITS. in the city of
New-York' and the second one from anywhere
between Bridge and Little sis; In Brooklyn,
New-York. Each OF these two spaces is vide
enough for several bridges. The act required that
the construction of the FIRST bridge should DC begun
within year after the assent OF the fcdelai
Government thereto. and of the second bridge with
in one year after the opening OF the nrs TO puonc
use The first ono may be called the williamsburg
Bridge. and the second the Hndson-ave br VIZ
iamsburg Bridge actually selected and estab-
lshed and the assent OF the Federal authorites 10
the plan Of the said bridge was obtained IN rep,
ruary, 1898 Nothing was done within the prescribed
actual work of construction OF the first bridge un.
less the purchase OF a small lot OF ground IN me
line Of If tho v anq dep nS
four and one-half feet square in February 1894 was
a commencement OF such construction IN go0d lann
claim that the company compiled with the require
Forfeiture But inquiry into that subject is not
necessary as the charter could be declared for
General OF the State for that purpose
A PROVISION OF LARGE VALUE.
The Commissioners. with the assent of the two
Mayors entered into agreement with the COM
pany 10 purchase its entire franchise for its WILL
iamsburg bridge. but not It's franchise 10 build the
Hudson-ave. bridge. but only the right TO encroaeh
as aforesaid upon the space within the limits OF
which 1; given the right to locate, but never
did locate It. Thus is left with The company rs
said lot OF real ard found alton. or any other
property included in the purchase In es
sum- however. the agreement contains provision
he value o. which II i De vad ana must S
worth many millions OF dollars
This case presents one Of those instances, grown
so common In this country. of the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
by law OF few at the expense OF all Public fran
used and controlled for the public welfare and econo-
my are allowed be bonded and stocked and ex-
plotted for the amassing Of vast unearned fortunes
out OF the people The holders Of such franchises are
permitted TO use and abuse them as though the
public had no rights in them.
NO NEED TO DECKER WITH THE BRIDGE
COMPANY.
The said statute under which the Commissioners
act gives them I'VE powe~ C! discretion TO purchase
the franchise the bridge company. but In terms
only so far as :he same relates 10 the bridge
thorlzed" thereby This means thai the Commits
kioners may purchase such franchise right the
company mas. but only II in their judgment and dis
erection necessary 10 the location of their bridge
The Commissioners were under necessity 10 en-
say TO It: we want nothing from you. there is
plenty OF room for bridges; you 90 and build yours
There is room for many bridges across the East
River, and the act does not prevent the company
-rcm building its bridges. though II may have been
chiefly intended ard fashioned TO enable them sell
out 1t provides for the taking Of the company's
rights only the extent that they may be found in
tie way OF the line 10 be selected by the Commits
power to interfere with the exercise Of such dis
cretion by the Commissioners. however unwise or
the commissioners be beyond their powers OF actual
ly fraudulent They are given the power to locate
for its said firet bridge IL they Instead Of upon
the ample free space open 70 them, and upon which
that me people OF the cities would prefer in
cur an extra expense OF millions Of dollars in building
q bridge that would not trench upon the franchise
of the said company rather than submit TO the
payment Of any amount of their money. however
small TO buy back permission TO build
bridge. which their representatives gave away In
1872 But the complete 10 that In law Is that
the Legislature has vested these Commissioners with
the power and discretion to locate the bridge of the
two cities upon the said line OF the companys pro-
posed bridge II they IT. and then TO purchase the
company's franchise out OF the public funds; and
there this court has TO stand. And the price con-
sderation to be given is also left 10 their discretion.
and this court may not gainsay them In mat either
fmprovideLt TO be a fraud in itself.
The bridge company having established no right
exclusive OF the Commissioners in tle territory
within the lines Of which IL was given the night to
locate the Hudson-ave. bridge. the portion of the
10000 which Is the consideration for the purchase OF
rsot in that territory Is an expenditure for moth
ms and hence Illegal waste Of the public funds;
ana as the agreement does not disclose what that