The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1895-11-19


Jersey. These reached an agreement
wnicn was formally ratified February, 8,
1884. by New York; February 26 1884, by
New Jersey and approved by Congress
tween the two. States should be the mid, mi, !,
a6tS as S q the ry Hesg reeh sRs
ton to the low water mark on the
Count County. slrUIe and gave N New York city con
troll of the waters Of the Hudson up TO
the low water, mark all along the ,i Jer-
sSdes. back of Englewood- The re- re-
msNnder of the exhibits offered by the
co,npanyrelate to the creation of HUDSON
York and similar acts. al of which a con on
fine the jurisdiction of New York 10 the
low water mark.
New Jersey never assented to or ac-
quiesced in this claim. On the contrary,
in 1929, that State commeneedI @ 1sI a a, SUI the
Supreme Court of the United States,
sey. was Justly entitled to the e
of and over the waters Of Hud.
degree deg Of North latitude to the Bay
of New York, to the filum aquae or mid
way of said River and to the midway or
chanel of said Bay of New York, together
with the land covered by the tn J. Water vs. OF
I
not pressed, but it resulted in the ap-
pointnlent of the Commissioners who
Formulated the agreement
Ions of that treaty gave rise to renewed
controversy, which was finally settled
by a decision of the New York Court OF
the Central Railroad Company Of
New Jersey The raiIroad i'll s; SoTa9pany ia,19raHs
mentS in that part of New York
Bay known as Communipaw Cove,
by reclaiming and extending out
Jersey shore to the channel of the Hud-
CENTRAL RAILRo2A4IR2, CLAIMS TO BE
Much complaint was made against the
work at the time on account of the stencil
which arose from the material used for
New York City, and New York under
took to exercise its jurisdiction over the
work.
The company resented the claim and
took the matter into the courts and
the Court of Appeals In finally deciding
the case used the following express
/. The treaty Of 1884 fixes definitely the
boundary line between New York and
New Jersey at or near the middle OF the
channel of the Bay of New York 1t re.
linquishes whatever claim or right OF
pr9perty, G New York formerly N.Y. had %dr to Rae the
between the center line thereof and low
water mark on the New Jersey shore. ).
2. The jurisdiction over the waters of
Hudson River and New York Bay, given
to New York in that treaty. was a
qualified and limited jurisdiction con-
ferred for police and sanitary purposes,
merce. and was not designed to confer or
create control over the. lands or domains
of New Jersey under the waters of New
York Bay and the Hudson River lying
west of the said boundary line.
The decision of the Court OF New YORK
is also in accordance with the interpre-
tation of several important national
treaties made by the Federal Govern
ment of which may be named the
with Great Britain and the Rio Grande
Treaty with Mexico. In both of the
above treaties the boundary line between
the nations is described as being in the
middle of the waters of the bays or rivers
through which it runs.
Notwithstanding this decision there
were frequent controversies, and finally
a Joint commission was appointed to re-
wise the boundary. between the two
States, and in 1889 they agreed that the
center of the Hudson River and other
waters dividing the two States should be
In the present suit the Railroad COM
pany has submitted its evidence, and in
reply the City will produce documents
and other testimony to show that the
property is within the taxing district OF
New Jersey.