The Jersey City news., 1892-02-20

public tide water basin established by the
same act of April 4, 1872, and 1t was urged
that the basin was dependent upon the
Jersey City grant, and as that had never
been accepted by the city, the tide water
basin itself had never come into legal ex-
istence. 1t will be seen therefore, that
the construction of this grant to Jersey
City was directly involved in that case.
II.
1t Is claimed by the defendants that
Jersey City rejected the grant. and that
therefore the Riparian Commissioners
might properly convey the lands.
10 this we answer.
First-That the city had no right to re-
iect the grant. 1t was competent for the
Legislature to compel its creatures to
take upon itself this gift, whether it
would or not and Section 3 expressly en-
acts that the city shall pay into the treas
ury of the State. or give bond to the
State, etc. After the Riparian Commits
sion liked price, duty arose to pay or
secure the same, and If. after reasonable
time for performance. that duty remained
unperformed, maudamus would lie on be-
half of the State. at the instance of the
Attorney General. to compel its perform
ance. In considering this identical grant
Mr. Justice Depue, in Easton e. Amboy
r. r. Co. VS.. Central r. r. Co., % VIZ.
267-275, says:-
Nor did the grant require an accept
dealing with a municipality with respect
to a matter relating to municipal affairs.
The Legislature may at its own will Gre
ate or extiuguish municipality, or impose
upon 1t new charter or an amendment
to its charter. 1t may also impose duties
Improvements, sucn as laying out
and making roads, establish
ing public markets, wharves
or docks and the like. Usually these
matters are effected by grant OF power
to buy lands and make the Improvements
thereon; but that the Legislature NAV of
its own will impose duty upon the mu-
nicipal authorities in this respect which
they cannot decline, is undoubted." (Cit-
ing cases.) "Where the State makes a
grant OF lands to n municipality, accept
ance. payment efa consideration, expendi-
ture of moneys in appropriating the lands
to the designated use, are circumstances
entering into the power of the State to
resume the grant, but are not conditions
precedent to the consummation of the
grant unless expressly made so by it's
terms. The grant to Jersey City executed
itself, and no but the State could repudi-
ate or recall It,"
Secondly.-We say that there was no re-
lection. What occurred was, that the
Board of Aldermen, which had no power
at all in the premises, passed a reso-
luton to accept the grant. This
resolution the Mayor vetoed. as
signing. among other obbjections,
proper Board Co act. In this view the
Board of Aldermen, after taking the
opinion of its legal adviser, acquiesced,
and referred the matter to the Board of
Public Works For the correctness of
this action we need no better reasoning
than that OF the learned City Attorney,
whose opinion to the Board of Aldermen
is found at page % of the printed case, to
which we refer the Court to avoid need
| less repetition. There seems to be no es-
cape from his conclusion. The concur
rent action of the Board of Finance and
Taxation was not then required, but was
imposed by subsequent amendments to
the city charter.
That the Board of Public Works took
no action up to 1874. when the Central
Railroad Company of New Jersey sought
to acquire the property, is immaterial.
| above cited (23 Vr. 275):-"The
Legislature evidently contemplated a
postponement of the time when
the city should take possession and
enter upon the improvement Of the prem
| ises.o
Mr.. Justice Dixon. in deciding the only
| question OF fact involved in the present
case, says Cease. p. &c., that the parties to
the riparian grant of 1874 ''acted with full
| knowledge of what had been done and
| omitted by the city authorities" and of
| course, the company is chargeable with
i knowledge of the law and must be pre-
sumed to have known that it could not
get title to the lands. and the most that
| it could acquire was the right to posses
| sion until such time as Jersey City should
| take the necessary steps to enter; or, in
otherwords, until the Public Boards OF
| Jersey City should perform the duty en-
| Joined on them by law.
Ill
| The defendants claim that the Riparian
| Commissioners could at any time have re-
yoked their action fixing a price for the
| lands. and that III "vacating" the Jersey
| City grant and conveying the same lands
| to the Central Railroad Company of New
| Jersey, the Comission did impliedly re-
woke such action, and that before Jersey
City can avail itself of the title granted
| by the act of 1879 it is necessary to ap-
ply to the Commission to fix price to be
now paid, which price, owing to changed
conditions, may differ greatly from that
originally fixed.
To this we answer, first, that the
Riparian Commissioners could act but
once Their duty was to fix price and
to do so promptly. The money was not
payable to them, but to the State, which
had the right to enforce payment at any
time. The duty OF the Riparian Commits
sion once PERFORMED, was ended, and they
secondly, their action of 1874 was not an
implied revocation. If they had any
power at all, it would be to change the
price. What they attem pied to do was to
''vacate" the grant altogether, and their
action was inconsistenG with fixing OF
price They have never to this day at
tempted to make any change in the
price 1t is noteworthy that while in
the draft of the vacating resolution
made by Jacob NJ. Clark, acting for the
Central Railroad Company OF New Jer-
sey, which was submitted to the Riparian
Commission for its approval, it is recited
that Jersey City had failed and refused
to comply with the terms, ETC." Cease p.
S3), the Commission declined to adopt
this claim, and in the resolution passed
by them, otherwise following the Clark
draft, it is recited simply that the city
had ''failed to comply with the terms,
ETC." lease D. 2S). The Commissioners
found no refusal, simply delay. which de-
lay surely was not unreasonable; and no
DELAY of public officials can be imputed to
the municipality itself.
".
The defendants claim that they have
equities arising from reclamation and the
payment of taxes to Jersey City. On the
latter point they seem to claim an es-
toppel
AS to reclamation, nothing had been
done at the time OF the commencement
of this suit on the tract IN question, eX-
cept to build causeway TO reach the
Centrals lands to the south of the tract.
Much has been done pending this suit,
INIT NTH that vp are not cOncarned