New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-06-15
STATE rs. CITY-MADE LANDS.

To ne Editor Of The NJ Y. Tribune
SIR: The argument as to the legal title of the
City to the made lands has been sufficiently vent
ated to enable the public 10 form some opinion or
the subject. To me il seems conclusive in favor
of the City. To discuss it further would be
weurisome ard Improbable. But there is another
aspect of the subject which demands word, and
which is more conclusive, if possible, than that
which have discussed. L mean the equitable
right Of the City.
The Stately reason of not having made q
formal grant of the lands under water-Dow claims
all the slips, wharycs, and lands, outside of South
and West streets-a property worth millions-and
which the City has been constructing OF vast
expense, under the eye and with the permission Of
the State, for more than sixty years. 1t has thus
buil+ up this great Commercial Emporium to be
not only the pride of the State, but Of the
Nation. The taxable property, the population,
the wealth of the State have been thereby largely
increased, not only in the City, but throughout her
boundaries; and all this has been done without
costing the State one cent or taking one farthing
of her property; for she has never held nor treated
the lands under water as property. There is not
an instance to be found her records of her selling
a grant of land under water. The City has never
asked for such grant but it has been given to
Ter az a matter of course. No city or other ad-
jacent proprietor throughout the State has ever
asked for grant of land under water but it has
been freely given; and now it is, and has been for
many years. permanent direction to the Com
missoners Of the Land Office freely to grant lands
under water, so far as they may promote the COM
merce Of this State, or can be benefcially en-
"joyed by the adjacent owner" In England, he
who reelaims land from the sea is considered
public benefactor, and is rewarded with premi-
um. What means, then, this law of the last ses-
sion, which singles out the City of New-York from
the whole State, and proposes TO make it pay for
what has hitherto been free gift to all who asked
pay for an act Of public service which demands the
thanks of the State If the City were conquered
By an enemy, it would not be more despoiled than
is purposed by this act of our own Legislature.
Hitherto the State in all its legislation has treated
the City as the apple of her eye-ts interests were
her interests. Its docks, its slips its harbor-all
liza facilities Of cOmmerce-were considered mat
tiers of public concern, to be fostered by every pos
sible means. At the last session, the City was
astonished at law which assumes to treat it as o
trespasser, which, for the first time in the legisa
ton of the State, holds up the City as an alien,
and insinuates desire to plumber it of its wealth.
This law was not demanded by the People, nor by
the Governor, nor by any officer appointed to
watch over the interests of the State. Whence
did it come 1t seems TO have been carried by
the same influence, and almost by the same vote,
as fastened upon the City the Railroad iniquity,
and perpetrated other frauds which have rendered
infamous the Legislature of 1860 Sucha law,
so passed against the protest Of the City, against
the veto of the Governor, against the moral sense
Of the whole communicated law, so fraught
with injustice TO the Cty-will not be sustained BY
the People of the State Of New-YOrk. NJ.