The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1892-02-17
NO MORE help NEEDED
Corporation Counsel Ed
wards on the South
Cove Grant.
THE WORK ALREADY DONE
President Edelstein's Picture of the
Public Schools-Money to
Mend Them.
BELLEvILLE EMPLOYEES PAID.


Cuba, but the Board of Aldermen heard
from him last night, through the Board
of Finance, in manner that can hardly
fail to open the aldermanic eye to wider
extent than usual.
The subject Of Mr. Edwards commuui
cation was the South Cove resolutions
passed at the instance of MIR .O'Neill some
weeks ago, but the paper had especial
reference 10 that clause of the resolutions
providing for the employment of extra
counsel in the pending South Cove suits
Before Mr.. Edwards went away he told
a JERSEY CITY NEWS reporter that no ad-
dtional counsel was needed and that
none would be appointed If he could help
it--and he thought he could
STATUS OF THE CASE.
His communication to the Board OF
Finance last NIGHT was in the way OF pre-
vention and will probably prove effective
1t is as follows:-
10 the Hon. Board Of Finance. Jersey
City:
GENTLEMEN--My attention has been
called to voluminous resolution passed
by the Honorable Board of Aldermen.
reciting some of the phases of the history
of the grant on the South Cove to Jersey
City. and its seizure by the Central Rail-
road Company of New Jersey. under
color of grant by the Riparian Commits
sioners. and calling upon your Board to
smploy additional counsel in the progress
Le the litigation connected Herewith. So
far as it goes the resolution correctly re-
cites the history Of the matter. but II the
rroposer of the resolnti on had known the
steps which had been taken by the law
yers for the city. and the present situa-
tion of the litigation, the Board of Alder
men would not have made this request.
When l was appointed Corporation
Counsel In 1889 l found among other
brought by the Mayor and Alder
men of Jersey City against the
American Dock and Improvement
Company, a sub corporation OF the Cen
trail Railroad Company of New Jersey. for
the possession of the South Cove. Thls
suit had been instituted in May, 1886. by
my predecessor in office, but had not
been urgently pushed to trial. I'M
mediately began a thorough investiga-
tioH into all questions, records and facts
bearing on the case. and prepared the
suit for trial; it was noticed for the Sep
tember and December terms in 1889, and
in both Instances was continued upon ap-
nication of the other side. In April,
1890, the trial was hela before Justice
Dixon of the Supreme Court, sitting with
opt jurv. Mr.. Gilbert Collins. who. by
reason of his connection with kindred
with the facts in controversy, was at my
suggestion retained by your honorable
body to aid in the trial of the cause. The
case was most elaborately presented
upon both sides, and upon conclusion
taken into consideration by the Justice.
JUDGE DIXoN's VERDICT.
During the summer of 1890 Judge
Dixon found verdict for the plaintiffs,
subject to the opinion of the Supreme
Court upon the special case which was
brought for the purpose OF writ OF error
and might turn into a special verdict or
finding: this was victory for the city.
Immediately thereafter the special case
was prepared; this was a difficult task,
but finally obtained the approval of the
Judge, The case was noticed for trial at
sever III terms OF the Supreme Court sit
ting at Trenton, but was not reached.
Finally in November, 1891, the case came
up for hearing before the main court Of
the Supreme Court, consisting OF Chief
Justice Beasley and Justices Depue,
Vtn Syckel and Scudder' the court
gaze extra time to both sides. ana the
matter was fully argued by Gov. Bedle
and ex-Chancellor Williamson on the
part of the railroad company, and Mr..
Collins and myself on the part OF the
city. As in all such cases the judgment
/ Of The court was held until the next term;
therefore expect ceclslon In tne Su,
preme Court on opinion day, which will
be the 18th of this month. This decision
the council for the city confidently ex-
pect will sustain the Judgment below
aud uphold the title of the city to the
valuable lands in question.
n throughout this whole litigation his
Z, Honor, Mayor Cleveland. has taken great
interest in the controversy, and has been
constantly informed as to the progress of
the suit.
EXTRA DUTIES.
> "While 1t is true that during the past
nrn ~ n q
have deyolved upon the law officers OF the
civ through various causes, among them
IN the new charter and the necessity for
sreonent opinions and construction there
of; (2) the act creating the Board OF Street
and Water Commissioners and the many
Z ouestions arising upon the transference
Of mowers of other Boards to that body;
f3l The service of notices under the Martin
act for property purchased by the city;
ia the City Hall Commission and the ac-
nnirement of land for its site. Still, l
ssnhmit that these mutfarious duties. to-
gether with the ordinary routine of the
office have not worked to the injury OF
The city on the South Cove litigation.
There are fewer cases undetermined and
unsettled against the city at present than
for many years past.
oThere seems to be some misapprehen-
sion in the minds of some people as to the
otIitude of the city in the South Cove
matter. and think that this is a proper
time to straighen that matter out BY the
art of 1872 the lands were ceded to Jersey
Citv by the State; the city did not accept
the grant. In 1874 the Riparian Commits
sioners attempted to revoke the grant
md conveyed tine property to the Central
Railroad Company of New Jersey; the
,ailroad entered into possession. In 1885
the citv did accept the grant and paid the
money therefor. The question then arose,
how should possession be obtained.
VARIOUS METHODS OPEN.
ssThere were Two methods-e1ther the
citv could obtain possession 6y force and
retain it only so long as it guarded the
rronerty by force, or an action of ejectment
cconid be brought. My predecessors in
office decided upon the latter course; in
tbis they acted wisely, aud upon the sug-
gestion of such thorough lawyers as Gill
Sert Collins. then Mayor, and Allen l..
McDermott then President OF the Board
n Finance. The gist OF an action in eject
,,ent is that the person entitled to posses
sion is wrongfully deprived therefor By
another, ,nerson, and the judgment OF the
Co{ ri is asked TO put the right owner into
nossession. Without admitting the possess
s,on in the railroad company, the city
conld not bring an action Of eJectment.
pandinp the action of ejectment ana
inst before the IL lial of the case, the board
~ Street and Water commissioners
nsssed resolution to take possession by
force, and they did SO; the raiiroaa COM