New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-06-18
STATE VS.. cIrY-MADE LANDS.

To me Editor Q The ~ T. Tib+se
Sir: Your new correspondent, "M.," If he DO a
new one, certainly comes out with new argument in
favor of the legal title of the city to lands made the
State lands founded not on evidence, or law but on
bis own convictions GIN" Is satisfied, therefore, "to
discuss il further is wearsome and Improbable"
M might have vouchsafed TO have told us what sat
isfed him. but he didn't Ii ia 30 clear, If we believe
him, aud therefore easy that he ought to have told
us, so that we, ALEC, might be convinced Whether,
therefore ON" was convinced that the CITY holds the
legal title TO all the lands chose to fill up, outside of
the city on the soil Of the State by grant from the
Crown, or from the Siate whether its legal title to
THE solid and continuous land is founded the law Of
1898 for building piers for the accommodation of res
seis or Oh the law OF Zoo for providing basins pihn
the oiy the sanitary regulation of 1903 1879,
for filing up sunken ots and Slips Tihin the city, for
purposes OF health; or whether he claims that the
city held al original title, anterior to that
of the State Crown; or whether he goes
back to the argument first put forth by your other and
nameess correspondent, to w.t. that the city, by filling
up parts Of the Hudson River became, thereby vested
with the title which may be called rhecl barroa te
or, if otherwise how oiherwse be does not dogn to
inform IL is in his view enough for the public TO
know that he ia satisfied. uenceforh, says he, let all
discussion cease. This mode Of argument is q great
ink-saver. Don't waste time, says he in effect in ex
aiming evidence, or exploring law, or looking at
grants, surveying lines; pitch your parchments,
your great seals your law books your theodoites and
chains, into the river they'll help fill up and make
more city land; rods and roods are nothing III" Is
satistied that's the end Of the law. Selsh
But il is Strange, that 81. " after such entire con-
yict, TO the citys legal tite should proceed to
argue that il has al equitable title man does not
seek Court fEqnlty where his legal righ are well
defined and clear. Indeed the Court of Equity grew
into existence TO take Of those very which
The lac did not provide for. To slide off, therefore,
fom sure iegai iitle to doubtful equitable one i'm
plies that, however clear Ms" convictions may be,
he does not despise the aid of strsws.
Now, ne to the grounds on which M" places the
oqp5tabte title of the city TO these made lands.
First: He says the State has not before claimed
them. answer not only has the State claimed all tho
lands in the Hudson River beyond the 400 feet but the
city has always, before, conceded the States title.
Not only have the Mayors Havemeyer and Temann
in their messages acknowledged this but that old
CerbeIus Controller Flagg who never granted hairs
breadth against the city, is obliged to admit it. Was
not the prayer of the city for the Battery extension
admission And the law Of the State granting the
prayer an exercise of authority! And again. if the
city had as argues, occupied the States lands
without cost for so years that would be equitable
Argument why she should continue to do Again, it
is not pretended that the made lands about which
arguing, have been filled in for anything like 60
years II Is only about dozen years ago that the
Warrington Market grounds were filled up.
Second Nj" says it is property worth mil
"h0Rs"-that is, the right of the city TO take the
property of the State, without asking, or compensa.
ton is increased in the inverse ratio of its valaeif
if of great value, it is clear
Third. "The city, he says, has never asked for
81 grant, but it has been given 70 her as q matter Of
"eourse." Therefore, she has an equitable right to
take whatever she chooses, srithout asking!
Fourth. He Gays the State has never treated the
lands under water as property. Answer She has
0frays treated them as property. If not property,
why has sbe gianted any Of them TO the c;tyl The
decisions before quoted show that they property
and 30 have been uniformly considered by the Courts
Why will en-" persist in this perversionl
Fifth He says the retainer of lands from the sea
is a beneiactor. Why then appoinc Harbor Com mis-
sioners to prevent the filling up Of the Harbor Let
every mai 60 to work and fill up little patch in our
harbor fer himself and lot the State hail him as a
benetactor
SiItk. M" then assails the law Of last Winter.
This OF course does not aid his argument in favor Of
the equitable title Of the city, AS TO the policy Of the
city acting under that law passed for her benefit aud
at her solicitation let her judge for herself If she by
not accepting it SHOULD have to pay millions INSTEAD
of tboussr d. under III she of course, only blame
herself. With that, we have nothing to do In this
discussion. If, as an" says speaking er ca
hcdroJ the people Of tie State will not sustain that
a@, let them overturn it. Whether they are likely to
lie convinced by the argument of NJ, who denies
their title altogether, that ii is proper case for grace,
might strike some minds az doubtful.
The grounds of equitable title in the city, there
fore 10 The States land, are not very convincing.
Perhaps it would have been better for nj. to have
waived Argument and rested the equitable as he did
the legal ttle the fact that it seemed conclusive to
han Yours, TERRA FIRmA.