New-York tribune., 1909-12-09
CITY Is ENJOINED
BRIDGE PAYMENTS
HELD UP By COURT.
Taxpayer Alleges Queensboro
Structure Is Illegally Built
and Moy BE Menace.

Ar Injunction Vas ohtsined from Jus
tic- seahury. Of the Supreme Court, yes
tsrdsy temporarily restraining the city
from making fnsi payment 20 this Penn
svlranis steel Company upon it's con-
tract for the erection Of the superstruct-
ure of the Greensboro Bridge in tax
PAYERS suit brought b. Eisman. Levy,
Corn e. Levine. counsel for the Allied
Real Estate Interests. through one Of its
members. Mrs Amanda n. Schunck. cf
BROOKLYN
The order ~ the court directs Mayor
Mcclellan. Controller Merr and City
Chamberlain Martin 10 appear az a hear
ing on Friday next and show cause why
the injunction should not be made per-
rnsnent pending the decision Of the tax
payers action. The lsgal documents in
the case were served on the city officials
lste yesterday.
The complaint upon which the intunc-
ten was granted sets forth that the
superstructure OF the greensboro Bridge
as erected is so proportioned that il is
able 20 carry only one-hslf Of the traffic
loads called for in the contract END
Of such sn errstic character that there
has been q waste Of material consequent
upon some members of the supsrstruet-
ure being given lower stresses than other
members performing = similar service.
II is also alleged that the stresses pro-
duoed by the prescribed congested 1--we
load. combined with the dead load, or
with the dead load and the wind load
ing. are higher than prescribed as per-
Missile in the contract and spscifca-
tions and higher than prudent 10 permit.
Because of this breach of the terms
OF the contract on the part Of the Penn
sylvania Steel COMPANY" the complaint
states. the city of New York and all
the taxpayers therein have been dam
aged I'm a sum far in excess Of the Sls3,-
s6s which is demanded by the Pennsyl-
ysnia Steel Company from the city of
New York as a balance due upon its con-
tract for the erection Of the superstruct-
ure"
The complaint quotes the terms Of the
contract and specifications as well as
the supplementary agreement authorized
by the Board OF Aldermen increasing the
carrying capacity of the superstructure
by two elevated railway tracks. and
states on information and belief that I'm
the erection OF the superstructure the
contractor failed 10 erect and complete
the work pursuant TO the terms. cove
rants and conditions OF the original and
supplemental contracts and spccifica-
tions.
L. .n1 efr
from the specifications and the findings
of the expert engineers who examined
the bridge on behalf of the city, that the
stresses in the erected structure are
higher than prescribed as permissible
IN the specifications and higher than
prudent TO permit. the complaint states:
II the weights hereinafter specifically
set forth were placed upon the said steel
superstructure OF such bridge. a great
calamity would ensue by reason Of the
fact that the said steel supsrstructure Of
81 ID bridge would be I'm danger of col
lapsing a. a time when many people
would be upon said steel superstructure
Of said bridge. end that such a calamity
would cause great loss of life, limb and
property. and that in consequence there
of the city Of New York would be liable
in large sums of money 10 the persons
who might he SO injured i'm their life,
limb ana property.
The affidavit Of the plaintiff states
ttst the question whether the super
structure was so constructed as 10 COM
ply with the specifications Of the con-
tract. was discussed In The Tribune
snd engineering journals published I'm
the city Of New York. and that II is
common knowledge among residents of
the city that the superstructurc Of the
bridge has not been constructed in such
a manner as safely 10 carry the weights
provided for in the contracts specifically
set forth.
The affidavit also states that II is
common knowledge that the bridge was
designed for the specific purposes men
toned i'm the contracts. but that tho
officers and representatives Of tho city
In charge Of the bridge have openly stat
ed that the bridge cannot rith safety he
used for all rhe purposes for which IL
was designed. and that n l. the intention
Of the representatives of the city not 10
attempt 10 use the said bridge for the
purposes mentioned in the contracts and
specifications 50 far as relates 10 its car
ry'ing capacity.
The opinion ~ m. Corporation, Cour.
sci is quoted, in which is given extracts
from the reports Of the engineering ex-
psrts Who examined the superstructure
for the city. 20 the effect that ,he reports
of both experts agree IN the general
proposition that II "a ould not he advis-
able 80 operate the bridge 80 i's full
csrrving csracitv. a. contemplated ia
the supplemented sgrssment--that is
with four trolley tracks and four els-
Tstsd rsilpsy tracks. The affidavit con
cludes IS fcliors
There is involved iri thi. matter 2 great
question - public policy. and ths relief
herein rrsye6 fer should bs granted and
continued during the psndency of this
action 50 that this great question NAV
% thoroughly thrashed out before the
said bridge can possibly be put 20 such
2 use as may result IN an awful cslam-
ity
PATIENT HANGS HTMcrYT