New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-06-13
STATE rs. CITY-MADE LhNDS.


SIR: Your correspondent, assuming the previous
discussion between US, takes his position with me in
the column Of correspondents.
understand him. in his last communication, TO put
forward the law of 1898 as his chief reance and he
says the law Of 1898 authorizes the city 10 go beyond
the exterior streets in the erection piers. deny this
construction of that law to be the true onei but it ia
enough TO say here that nheecer the pers authorized
by that law were to be, they 10 be piers, not
solid and continuous land. They to be, that
law says al conreniert distances from each otter"
not therefore, entirely flled in; they were to be
"aciM suitable bridges, not solid ground without any
bridges they were to he =" for tie accommodation Of
SEA gessels;" how nicely accommodated sea
vessel would be on the Washington Market
grounds, some hundreds of feet from water? They
were 10 be "Vpon sach a construction as 10 admit
the current of The sad riuers at beth ebb and fOod
10 UaSh du0y all DIRT and impurities Did you
ever 90 down 10 if the current OF the rlyer al ebb
and flood would be admitted through this made land,
about which we are arguing Try il. What pre-
tense then is there for your correspondent to contend,
as he that if the law of I798 authorized the
construction of such PIERS beyond the exterior line OF
streets not then built that it meant to y1bPrize the
city TO I'LL IL the rirer, as far ont as it l at any
time choose, solid and continuous grey& tor pur.
poses entirely incompatible with its use ~ $STS, and
which indeed as the Harbor Commissioners say,
I" deprived the port OF dock accommodations IN the
center Of busness;" and then, that the land thus
filed m became the ctys property for any use 1t might
elect
This is the whole ground, point, and argument Of
your correspondent. Judge, ye, of its force. The
law of 1903 by your correspondents article, 10 no
longer in our way.
Your correspondent then plants himself on the first
section of the law Of 1906, and quotes il in full by
which appears that, after enacting what seemed lie
main object the creation Of 6astR between Whitehall
and Exchange slips, the East side il proceeded to
authorize other basins 10 be formed " IL The said
cfv mot Ot Of III as might he necessary for trade
ard your correspondent argues from this authority 10
build BASIN WithtR the city, power to I'LL up solid
ground, outside Of the city, far into the river and thus
render impossible any 6otin anywhere And when
he contends for instance that, when the city las the
Harbor Commissioners say authorized the deposit
Of earth in the Hudson River, between the terinlna-
ton of Dey and Nesey streets for about 40 feet IN
depth and 4S0 feet III width, west Of West street. and
" ihus deprived the port of dock accommodation II
did under the authority of the LIST section of the law
of 1906, which gave power to make BASIN ctthiR NE
cty; and that too, under law Whose preamble states
its object TO be "to provide additional basins, &e.,
" sad city for the accommodation Of ressetS - aud
that the title TO this land basin thus changed from
the State to the city get an idea Of the nature Of his
argument.
Your correspondent then passes TO the law of 1913
(which passed in 1903 and put in the consolidated
act of 1873, beng mere sanitary regulation, and
which as your correspondent says gives authority " to
" fill ont lots fronting or the North and East Rigers,
but not into the North and East Rivers, beyond the
oity's grant.
In other words, it gave power to the city to compel
the owners of lots PRINTING on the North Rirer," TO
fill up TO and build bulkheads on the exterior line OF
the city, and not beyond.
There should be no Misunderstanding US to the mean
ing of the authority by those laws, to ill up, alter,
"aneDd any public slip" ship is defined
by the Supreme Court, to be ian opening between two
"pieces Of land or 1chqrces" The 'cLarrcs are the
exterior line of the solid filing, TO wit South and
West streets; and the slps mentioned in those laws
the openings between these Tharres, and are all
soith5n the citys grant.
The authority is TO fiji up the slips existing at the
time OF the passage of the law CTS he said CHy-not
out of it. Under this law the city has repeatedly
acted and filed up various lips, rahia the cilys lia
iis, 10 wit: Coenties slip I'm part, Old slip, Burllng
slip, Coffee house slip, Peck slip, and Albany basin
all of which were within the exterior line of the ciiys
grant; or, stated in said laws they "sips,
the SAID csty."
The law authorizing the city TO fiji up slips or sink
piers, fill mp sunken lots, &c., is everywhere quail
fed by the words -" ia the said city, and do no where
mean outside of the citys grant But the argument Of
your correspondent IT, that these words "0ut OF
the said city," This is the issue between
II your correspondents construction of the laws of
1883 1906 and 1873, is correct they would apply, as
well 10 the old Battery as TO any other part Of the city,
and would have conferred the power the city to ill
up the ground IN the riyes around the old Battery;
which land, filled, would thereupOn he says, be-
the city property. But the city did take this
view of s rights ana therefore applied TO the Legis-
AtuTe 1Or fUStONl 10 extend the battery, Blk hundred
feet into the river; and the Legislature March I'D
1921, passed law, authorizing the city TO extend the
Battery into the bay, aud North and East Rivers not
exceeding COO feet. Why obtain such law, if, AS
your correspondent argues the city them already by
the laws Of 1898, 1906 aid 1873, had the power
Now, word as 10 the second point TO wit, this
magical transfer Of title. Your correspondent says
that grant of land, and grant of land under rafer
are very Different and POUNDS his idea on the reason
that you cannot, where the land under water take
man down 10 the bottom and give him the lcdis pos
seSsio or livery of seizn. Yea the difference in the
two cases III obyious; IN the land has water on IL
in the other 1t has Mt, aud that all.
lie says, am "befogged by some technical notions
about passing fee OF land The Courts and law
books similarly belogged. The State sis seized in
fee of all the lands under navgable waters and entitled
To grant and ooHccy eDg." The grant of land 10 the
city is Of "e fee SIMPLE Of he soA g Sand r.. 49,
The fee of land under water is the same IA the fee of
land over water, or without water and passes by
"pront or conreygHce," in the same way If yolr
correspondent is right that the grant Of land under
,oater II mere Intangible franchise, them Of course,
the city has no ce or title in any Of The land below