New-York tribune., 1896-12-26
A NUISANCE, SAY CITIZENS
THE CLOSING OF THE MOTT HAVEN
CANAL STRONGLY ADVOCATED.


PROMINENT RESIDENTS AND LANp-o">h''' ''
,rs xrIGuBOEuoOD DECLARE THE OLD
WATERWAY DANGEROUS TO HEALTH
AND FAvoE COMMISSIONER
HAFFEN's RESOLUTION.
=, ,ho ,,ovor,s Office on Monday morning al IL
o.c,ock there will be another hearing on .on.
,ror rI,nens resolution to open Canal i"''o
from One-hundred-a neutrality-suspicious. 10
hundred a nd fort V -fourth-st.. wnich n'o'o'
closing of the private waterway KNOWN do III. -o -
Haven Canal. Probably no sheet oi "
eoual insignfcance hae been the CAUSE VI ~ - -
controvcrsv Almost from the time that 'ne w"
- ,,.;son;o oran,ed permit for the uiesihS
=, this ditch II has regarded by ci'i~els VI
the neighborhood a public nuisance ,,,
after effort has been made to secure It's "oo' ~,
but the handful of business men pro''ine o
maintenance have thus far sta'eo VI . he
action The canal has been condemned III 'ui" y,
,.o r,orl. Denartment the Health department. an"
tho Dcnartment of street improvements anu 'no
Board of Street Opening established s"eo' III "
stead on the final maps as fed IL Is OH '''o '
ing of this street that action Is 10 De 'aheh VII ~
day. -. 49, ,,o,cb
Tho nropertv-owners and residents OF the neieh-
,,r,,oon arc almost unanimous in the opinion that
tho canal is n nuisance and should DE h'i'u ~,
A petition headed by Drs 5. H. MclroE anu W
Heuel and signed by thirty prominent P"'
sjcians Of tho immediate neighborhood' was 'e
Gently presented to the Board OF fea'n "anue ,,a
for it's condemnation in the interest OF 'he puonc
boo,th August Belmont owns go lots two docks
wcst Of the canal and his attorney. Charles o'e"
art DAWSON In speaking Of the matter, said yes
terday: !,
''It is clear from the action OF the boaru vi
Health in condemning the upper end OF 'his oi'o"
as nuisance that steps should be taken
nd
showing how restricted improvements on the line
OF the canal arc. and how extensive improvements
off the line Of the canal on the contrary nave
been is a strong argument that something Is the
matter there
General Manager John NJ Toucey Of the New
York Central and Hudson River Railroad Com
pany whose Mott Haven Station lies Immediately
west of tie canal. remarked: I'VE approve the
scheme for closing the mud canal between one
hundred a nd thrty -eghth-st. and One-hundred-
and forty -fourth-st although it does not practi-
cally benefit in any way. Still. we are or the
opinion that It is an Improvement which ought to
be carried out.
Alonzo Carr who the corner Of Onehun-
dred- and thirty y-eighth-s and Thrd-ave.. said II
was one Of the citizens of the old town OF Nor
risania who protested against the granting OF the
permit to dig this ditch. The stand that We took
was that it would become public nuisance and
disea breeder. That was a quarter OF a century
ago. and time has proven that we were right II
was to meet objections that Rider Conk-
ling agreed to dredge 1t. bulkhead IT, and keep the
bridges in repair. and finally TO fill II In at their
expense if 1t became nuisance. have in
vestigated this matter closely than most peo
pie. ! have watched the tide coming In and have
noticed that eddy is formed at the mouth Of the
canal. into which is drawn much OF the floating
refuse of the from Harlem and the North
Side This Is prevented from floating out again
by two causes. In the Harlem. aside from its
great width and depth. there is continuous cur
rent from the East River 10 the North and back
again But this canal has no running water en-
tering il at its upper end. and this Is made still
worse by the lock gate at Northumberland
thirty-eighth-st. that IL becomes a general
ceving basin for floating fifth and refuse. From
the Harlem Bridge have watched the body of a
dead dog floating up and have afterward seen the
same carcass peacefully baskng in the placid but
Shiny waters of the canal above One-hundred- and
thirty-eighth-st II the city authorities want to
protect the private interests along the canal they
will vote TO perpetuate this business II they want
TO protect the public interest they will vote to close
IT,
Albert f. Da ss. architect. Of Third-ave and
One-hundred and hirty -eighth-st.. and the or
ganiZer of the North Side Board of Trade said
Every consideration of public policy demands
that this canal should be filed in 1t is not alone
unhealthy, but 1t retards the growth and develop
ment OF the neghborhood. 1t depreciates the
value, and prevents the sale and improvement OF
an property III It's NlCinity Inc question must be
dealt with from a broad minded far sighted stand
point, considering the future this place as an
important section of the great metropolis. We
want no repetition OF the Chicago River or Gowa-
nus Canal on the North Side. Dredge 1t and wall
It you will, this little ditch never be made
to compensate for the nuisance II will ever be- or
for the constant expense Of maintenance. Suppose
the canal that formerly existed where Canal-st
now is had been permitted remain Does any
one suppose that district would have been the
important business section II now Is? Imagine a
canal running parallel with Broadway from the
Battery TO the City Hall: or suppose that Grand
Fourteenth. Tweniy-third and One-hundred-an
twenty-ffth SITS. were cut In two by a canal run
ming north and south. Would their DEVELOPMENT
or taxable value to the city have been what they
are today
General Egbert l.. Niele president OF the East
Bay Land Improvement Company of the Iarg
est property holders on the North Side expressed
the opinion: This insignificant little ditch should
have been filled in long ago Its continued cx-
stence has affected the entire North Side to
which One hundred nd-hrty y-eighth-st. is the
gateway. and One-hundred- and hirt y-eig hit st
can never be properly developed while this canal
80 would m ne naFow
property interests feel justified in demanding
Thomas J. Rush a prominent lawyer. well known
on the North Side for his public spirit. remarked
thirty -eighth-st is public nuisance. and a per
manent obstacle TO an Improvement in it's i'm
BENJAMIN Marks, who owns 12s feet frontage on
the canal the north side OF Northumberland
canaowners who SO subbOrniy contest i a1iing lit It
in standing in their own light, Their prop
in place Of the canal and the entire district would
be benefited, J own quite a large plot on the canal
benefit me as well the rest But I believe it is
both unhealthy. and detriment to property values
Commissioner Hanen's resolution ought certainly
to pass