The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-11-11
Freeholders Must Build the
Pacific Avenue Bridge
Ten Feet Above
the Water.
TEXT OF JUDGE DIXOES OPINION
The Board Has the Power to Change
Street Grade Without City's
Consent.

The following is the full text of the des
eision of the Supreme Court in the suit
between the FreehoIders and the Morris
Canal Company in regard to the recon-
struction of the bridge over the canal at
Pacific avenue
The regulation of the Morris Canal Co..
| adopted April Z, 1873, that every bridge
rebuilt and every new bridge, whether
| built by the company or by any other au-
clear space of ten feet above high water
mark of the canal under the lowest parS
of the bridge" is binding upon public
authorities when the circumstances OF the
| particular case do not render it's enforce-
| ment unreasonable.
Argued June Term. 1897. before Justices
| Ludlow Collins and Dixon.
| Mr. c. L. Corbin for prosecutor.
| Mr. Griffen for defendant.
| The opinion of the Court was delivered
| The question for decision in this case Is
whether the Morris Canal and Banking
| Company has right to insist thaA
public bridge, to be built over its canal in
| Pacific avenue, Jersey City "a street laid
out since the canal was constructed),
| shall leave clear space of ten feet above
| lowest part of the bridge.
| By the charter of the company passed
December 81, 1924, and supplement- there
| was authorized to construct a canal con-
Meeting the waters of the Delaware River.
| near ElaStOn, Win the waters OF Lne ktdQ-
| son. at or near Jersey City, and " to
| adopt. establish and carry into execution
! such bylaws ordinances and regulations
| as shall by its President and directors be-
| Judged necessary or convenient for the
| said corporation in respect to its canal.
! . /. b. provided the same be not contrary
| to the constitution or laws of the United
| States. or of the State of New Jersey" On
| April 7, 1878, the company adopted reso-
| luton that every bridge rebuilt and every
i new bridge, whether built by the company
| or by any other authority over the canal,
should be of the height above stated.
This regulation seems to us to be within
| the power delegated by the charter. Evil
| IDENTIFY, immovable bridges across the can
| al might be placed so near the surface of
the water as to destroy the utility of the
| tended to give to the corporation the
! right to prescribe their elevation, provid-
| ed the rule adopted did not contravene the
| law of the land and was not unreasonable.
| 1t is not suggested that any law is vio-
1 lated by the rule above mentioned, and
| we find nothing to indicate that its en-
forcement in the present instance would
be unreasonable. The engineer employed
by the defendant to prepare plans and
| specifications for the proposed bridge tes-
| tifies that a proper bridge and proper ap-
I proaehes, giving the company the clear
ance specified, can easily be constructed,
the only trouble being the raising OF the
grade of the street.
| The trouble in raising the grade of the
street, which the engineer had in mind,
and which has been urged in argument
before US, is that the grade is fixed by
the authorities of Jersey City, who may
not consent to change it. But the defend
| ants. empowered by law to build the
bridge, are likewise empowered to con-
struct the necessary approaches F'reehol-
and can, therefore, without the citys-con-
sent. alter the actual grade sufficiently to
render access to the bridge safe and con-
| venient
The resolution of the defendants to
erect a bridge below the prescribed
height is Illegal and must be set aside,