The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-11-23
TO SAVE TEE PALISADES
Attorney General Grey Asks
Today for a Hearing in
an Important Case,
Especial 10 ..The Jersey city News.s

TRENTON, Nov. 20, S97.-Attorney
General Grey did not make his application
to the Court of Chancery this morning
to have a day fixed for the argument of
the application for an injunction to re-
strain the contractors from blasting out
the Palisades. The Chancellor was not
in Trenton today and Vice Chancellor
Grey presided in the Court Of Chancery.
He is a brother Of the Attorney General.
and for that reason the latter did not
wish to apply to him. The matter will
come before the Chancellor at Jersey City
on December Is.
The State alleges that the defendants, a
firm of quarrymen, are violating the cove
nants entered into by them with the Ri
parian Commissioners at the time they
secured their lease to their property,
The covenant contained a clause hat
the lessees should not destroy the con-
tinuity and uniformity of the Palisades.
F. G. Marsh is counsel for the defend
ants.
A brief history of the case is interest
ing, and is given below
In 1895, the Legislature passed an act
supplemental to the Palisades act"
taking cognizance of the reports of the
destruction of the Palisades. The pre-
amble to this act set forth that the Pali-
sades are liable to be irreparably injured
or destroyed unless measures are adopted
for their preservation, inc that under
certain restrictions contained in the act
the threatened injury and destruction
could be ayerted. 1t was enacted in the
law that the Riparian Commissioners
should not make any lease, grant or con
veyance of any lands lying under the
waters of the Hudson River adjacent to
or in front of the Palisades, or adjacent
to or in front of the strip of land between
the base of the Palisades and the lands
under water, unless there be inserted in
such lease, etc, restrictions that shall
forever preserve unbroken uniformity and
continuity of the Palisades.
Attorney General Stockton, in 1896, COM
menced the suit mentioned above. After
reciting the covenants entered into by the
defendants, which are in accordance to the
supplemental act passed in 1885, the At
torney General says that the defendants
have disregarded their covenants, not
withstanding that they c~ovenanted that
Under water leased, or cause to permit
said and to be used or devoted for or
to any use, purpose, occupation, work,
business or trade which shall be injurious
to or destructive of the Palisades" 1t
was also set out that the defendants were
then carrying on the business of stone
crushing on their upland adjacent to the
land SO leased, and delivering the stone
over the wharf which they erected on the
land leased into boats. Prior to the
execution of the riparian grant, the de-
the land under water n extending from
high water line to the base of the steep
rocks. At the time the lease was made
that the foliage and vegetation had been
partially removed from the slope in ques-
ton, and the slope now presents the ap-
p~earance of an earth and stone work en-
bankment broken into in several place by
excavations, in order to secure She rock
and stone embedded in the earth.
Attached to the information filed by the
Attorney General was a sketch showing
the character of the destruction which
has been committed on the Palisades by
eral says it was distinctly understood
and mutually agreed between the parties
to the lease that upon breach of any OF
the covenants contained therein the lease
Commissioners, the Governor asserting.
The Commission and Governor have de-
clared the lease TO be ended. The Attor,
ney General insists that the lease should
be rescinded and Cancelled by an equity
court. The mere resembling of the lease
by the Riparian Commissioners has rem
dered the lease a mere nullity, which, II
left in an uncanceled state, may be cloud
on the title Of the State of New Jersey to
the land.
The Attorney Generals information
was answered by the defendants to the
effect that they deny nat they have dis
regarded any of the covenants of the
lease. Ihey claim tnat the OF
the Palisades at this point fails to show
any destruction. They further deny that
the Commissioners and the Governor had
any authority or warrant in the law for
revoking the lease and deny that the
State is entitled to a the agreement
rescinded. On June 20, 1895. the Riparian
Commission made a personal inspection
of the premises on the application of the
defendants to construct a dock, and the
Commissioners then decided that the
quarrying carried on by the defendants
was confined to loose rock at the foot
of the Palisades. and upon these facts
the Attorney General advised the Com
missioners, as a matter of law. that they
were obliged to execute a lease to the
defendants. which was done. AT the
meeting of the Commission which re-
scinGed the lease, the defendants claim
that no evidence was produced indicating
that the c%ovenan had been violated, ex-
cepting a single affidavit. while on the
other hand the defendants denied that
any destruction had taken place. They
asked for a dismissal of the suit.