New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-07-24

JUSTICE GARRETSON.S JUDGMENT RlSNEshSA>D AMI
THE MAYOR DECLARED TO HAVE
THE POWER OF REMOVAL.
The old Commissioners OF the East River
Bridge were beaten and the new ones upheld in
Office by a decision given yesterday afternoon by
the Appellate Division Of the Supreme Court
The proceeding was by quo warranto by the old
Observation-Disclosures D. Baird. James a
Sperry Henry Batterman Richard Deeves
Salem H. Wales and Francis B. Thurber-to
Gust the new Commissioners-Lewis Nixon.
Smith F. Lane James W Boyle John w Web
Der Thomas s Moore and Julian d. Fairchd
The old Commissioners were removed by Mayor
Van WICK and the new ones appointed in their
places on tie hearing before Justice Garrett
son he directed a verdict in favor Of the old
Commissioners The new appontees appealed.
and the sole question before the Appellate d.
vision was the power OF Mayor Van WICK
TO remove the old Commissioners.
Justice Cullen writes the opinion. and says
there IS no question that the REALTORS were pub
Mc officers and that the Mayor had the power TO
remove them. unless 1t could be established that
their particular was not intended TO be
covered by the legislation which gave the Mayor
power TO remove other public officers. The re-
lators claimed that the building OF the East
were State agents Justice Cullen says that ne
cannot agree with this claim. The work was
undoubtedly a municipal work Of the two cities,
prosecuted in their behalf by municipal officers
Continuing he says:
In Walsh vs. the Trustees OF the New-York and
Brookyn Bridge IL held that the trustees OF
me Bridge were mere representatives, ana ase,,t9,
and not the legal masters OF the laoorcr VINO
then IsG No n ec lo' o5 lie the Court however de-
ID OK al
the ultimate responsibility lay. But the same PLAIN.
III having subsequently brought MS ACTON asaihs,
the TWO cities walsh vs.. Mayor. lOl y \, ~ ~
was held that the defendants were Iespohsn;le ~,
that Judge Earl wrote: The TWO cues ~; III
the proportions mentioned In the act were TO fur-
Bridge the trustees Of the Bridge were 20 be ap,
pointed by the city officials Of the two cues. Al
belong 10 the two cities jointly. and the Bridge and
al It's appur chances and all the property connected
in shares 10 each Of the cities equal t. ne amount
paid by them for re construction OF ne brloss
and for the land and appurtcnanCes thereof
w. IN ever sens g." rnanagcS for The two cities
and the ,Tneter1 appointed by the city officials rep
resent the two cities their agents. Hence. they
and servants Of tie cities for whose careless and
negligent acts ttey liable
After the dec. sion IN the Walsh case the Legs
lature enacted Nv Chaptc ~ OF the Laws Of lsJ
that thereaf,sr ueitnr ~ the two cities should be
that the trustees OF the Bridge should succeed to
the liabilities Of TIE two cities whsther on 81 ~,
tracts or Tor vrloncs. actions for which should De
prosecuted against The trustees in their corporate
name and all DAMAGES ana Jucsinoni,s siou'a i,s
paid out Of ne money received by them Tor tolls
ard While this lcgsla ton reheven me cltles
iy on account OF the Bridge. the trustees did not
cease 20 be municipal officers or agents.
NOT STATE OFFICIALS.
II Is asserted for The plaintiffs that the REALTORS
were appointed not as ordinary city officials 10 as
charge continuous governmental duties and to per-
form part Of a permanent scheme for the govern.
ment of either municipality. but TO construct and
complete q particular improvement. and that their
official term to endure for the period requisite
FOR ;he construction OF that Improvement IL IS
argued that these facts take the Offices OF me re-
ators without the intent ana ccntempiaton OF TIT N
Legislature In the enactment OF me cnarter. rms
argument would have much greasefr i2tce were so
not for the amendatcfy act OF 1875 tChapter 3IL.
By the original act of 1885 the Commissioners were
simply to construct the Bridge and turn II over
when constructed 10 the trustees OF me or
go Brooklyn Bridge FOR management ana control