The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1895-01-30

nave. acquired THEIR grants 1OI iuC 2tatV
to- acquire them again for the purpose
of revenue" he said, because the Legs
lature acted beyond the scope OF i{s
authority when it made the grants. ~
violsted its trust when 1t did so. Any
grant is necessarily r~evokable and the
State can resume control at any time
If other States in the Union should
copy the riparian laws of New Jersey,
the Senator said, every harbor in the
country would be at the mercy of q ma.
jority in a legislature. A great part or
the State is now absolutely in the power
of private corporations, and the supreme
authority never contemplated such a
thing.
Delving into the past the Senate said
that for the leases and grants made from
1904 to 1864 the State had not received
a single dollar. Every title vested in
e fWeep t = e~or ysara mas Of ille indlvia Vested Pc
From 1864 to 1898 the State received for
leases and grants the sum of $2,979,6l4.2o.
The total amount. received by the state
for leases alone from March IA, 1867 to
1895 was $T23,214.
Here you have less than $4.o00,000 for
these great properties conveyed ss na and
ent owners say these same lands can
never be reclaimed by the State. Al
though they estimate their value TO-DAY
lieve they would reach that figure. This
Is the value placed upon lands lying I'M
der water by the corporations, remember,
\ although they purchased them for less
than one fftieth of that sum.
From the Governors message, | find
that the present value of all the riparian
lands that have been sold in fee is S7,5U3,-
LAG. If this be. true, ] submit that the
total value would not exceed the sum Of
so. 900, coo. Then, If that is the true value
of those lands and improvements, is it
not possible to bond the State and take
them back? A ready market is Offered
for New Jersey bonds at three per cent;
The interest then would be but S750,0o0
annually, and the rental received from
the property from those very corpora
tons, which must a them, would re-
turn the State ten per cent. upon its
IF you are not satisfied with my esti-
mate. make the cost of these lands and
improvements $50, GOO, 900. The interest
lands at 10 per cent. upon the invest
ment would return IS, 600, 900, and deduct
ing the 81, 10000 for the interest upon the
bonds and you have a net profit to the
State CT 50, 5o0,090."
The Senator concluded that the bond
ed Indebtedness incurred in the purchase
of the riparian lands could be paid off
IN thirty-fve years from the rental.
MATERIAL MEMS LIENS.
The room of the Committee on Judi
material men, laborers ard carpenters.
who had gathered to express their views
upon MI. SINNERS bill repeating q
part of the Mechanics Lien law of 1890.
ing Inspector of Camden, designated the
old law which the 1890 replaced as a
cumbersome one, while the new law was
the best that could have been adopted,
as it protected the contractor as he
should be protected. In his opinion,
the law did not affect building and loan
he had found that they prospered under
It. The mechanic should be protected,
but he was little under the old law which
Mr.. SINNERS bill would revive. Mr..
Skinner said that his object in intro
ducing the bill was to give more pro-
lection to the mechanic and not to i'm
| pair the law.
Joseph Haggerty of Trenton said the
Stull act of 1890 had worked well for
the mechanic and material men of his
city. A delegation of 300 wanted the law
pealed they would be left without pro-
lection. A Trenton contractor named
Joseph Smith wanted the repeater pass
ID because the Stull law. he said, work
ID a hardship to the contractors.
A BAD Law.
William A. Linn of Hackensack advo-
sented the BHuiiding n loan - As SOFA
ton of his town. which had found the
present law bad. The Stull act was SO
pad thai the law of 1892 a passed to
eiples of a lien, and building and loan
associations under it were mere gambling
associations. # the contractor should
De dishonest. the loaner had no protec-
ion. 1t was likely that material would
have to be paid for twice. John Brud-
der, who represented the Peoples Build
-f4S Csl1d LOdI <ASSOCicl-Ot VI 11dIIlSOn,
also wanted the bill repealed. HIS as
ISOLATION had a safe full of releases, and
10 director could take an affidavit that
hey We're not fraudulent. He claimed
that the law was detrimental to the in
terests of the State and TO the laboring
men who work on buildings. Nor did
It give absolute protection to the ma
terial men: There was constant danger
of loss and making double payments I'M
der the law. Judge J. W. Wright of
Princeton favored wiping out the pres
ant law He Gnid fhot InL Eod fa1,r ~A
eases on 2 building to obtain last sum-
mer and they cost him SIPS. Under The
.ew, he claimed. releases must be obtain
d from every one who furnished mate
rial on a building. The law only protect
ed a lot of scalawags who took con
tracts at prices SO Low that they could
he poor woman who invested her all
u a home. What was wanted was a
plain law that would protect all classes.
The law was denounced as a perfect
nuisance by Freebooter Hanna Of Hars
rison. 1t put people to the trouble of
getting releases when all their bills were
paid.
W. E. Buchanan of Asbury Park and
c. W. English of Montclair, both ma
5erial men, urged the passage of the
INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE.
Hearing No. | on House bill No. 43,
Assemblyman Eisele's industrial insur-
ance measure, took place before the
Committee on Banks and Insurance YES
terday afternoon. The session was by
no means interesting. Edgar Ward, of
the Prudential Insurance Company, was
the only insurance man present to pro-
test against the committee reporting the
measure. Mr.. Ward explained that his
company was opposed to any legislation
such as is proposed in Mr.. e sele's meas
ure. They considered it unwise legis-
lation, as the company felt that it
could do better by the policy-holder by
following out rules of its own. He had
no idea of the sentiment toward the bill.
he said, but knew much Of its past his
tory. h committee must assume all
responsibility if the law was enacted, he
added.
There had been several changes in the
bill made at the request of the Mutual
Benefit Life reinsurance Company Of New,
ark. These, it appears had no bearing
on the industrial Insurance business.
Mr.. Ward commended that there should
be a number of alterations in the bill.
For instance, he held there were s,1per-
fluous words in the title and at various
points he declared there was fault to be
found. Demands for a cash surrender
should be made on the home Office and
not on the agents, he held.
4 disagree with you on that point.''
broke in Mr.. Eisele. 1T should be suf-
ficient that the demand be made on q
duly accredited agentSof the company.
the one through whom the policy of in.
surance was obtained. Let thai agent
forward It to his home office, Fancy n
policy holder in some distant place. who
never had any transaction with a com
pany's home Office, being REQUIRED 10
communicate with 1T over the head Of