New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-12-17
POPULAR OBSERVATIONS.
THE ASTORIA LAND GRANT
,sn,s STATEMENT AS TO WHAT THE COM
psxv PROPOSES TO BUY AND WHAT


49,. t,a,,or Of The Tribune.
TO INC -. ossAnce OF the controversy In relation
Oh. ,s,o,r,a land grant is whether a sufficient
10 ~ - ha Maid by the company IN exchange for
P. =, obtains The first question: 10 oeVlue' there-
,o-e IS: What does II OBTAIN
iUs ,h arst place II obtains from the city moth
An that IL gets 1t gets from the state The
,v has not and never hao any 'ite' any grant
oS Int any lease, any shadow of claim right
any 80, % the lands under water in front Of the
OF M holoneine 10 the Astoria company.
upla" III in fact has the State 10 sell the
NV" cor,napvq II has the naked legal title to
ss.ol and a fraction acres of land lying between
~ Uater mark lin front OF the uplands afeaoy
h'sn 70 the Astoria company and the lines
oelo"s ~ bv the United States Government as
la" 80 and pier lines" in front of the premises.
pD"' ,rEen lands the State cannot I'LL in al
l"' N A holds title 10 them. No riparian rights
tho"e. Nod 10 these lands. The riparian rights
az =, access TO the water-belong TO the uplands.
t4@' =, whom can the State sell these lands? To
wv n,, N the riparian owner, and, since they
~ 81 I,,,n the boundaries OF the city of New-York,
hs onlv sell them to the riparian owner after
~ to 10 the representations OF the city govern
"S, os 10 whether 1t would be against the public
M" s, and an impeachment 20 the commerce of
- nor, 10 convey them TO the riparian owner.
-hs state can also grant them (but on one fixed
1osition) to the city itself That condition is that
CITY should nEst pay the riparian oWHei loi inc
,olue Of all his rights which would be taken away
80 him bv the citys taking these lands and fill
49, them in That is 10 say. II the city wants any
,ssr;s dock rights, Il must buy them as any other
body or person must buy them; il cannot steal
tSrS at then is the value Of these sixteen OF
~ hinder water? AS land under water they
5 nrsctically no value Filled in, they are OF the
o ~ acreage value as land in the vicinity.
THE entire error in the discussion has lain In the
nopular belief that riparian rights (Which are me
XXI, object OF Value) attached 10 lands under
waier They are not, they never have been IN the
whole history of this State nor OF any otner state
The contrary proposition Is NE TACT h.PaI!aaa
rtgbts are attached to the adjacent upland, ana
ore Of these riparian rights which attaches 10 the
uplards is the right to OBTAIN a patent OF sIdns
Son the state OF the lands under water In front OF
such upland. grant 10 any other person Is py
Express enactment absolutely void.
In other words when appraisers apprdlse Idlas
under water for the purposes OF a grant Dy tne
state they appraise them and should appraise
rem as so many acres Of land at the particular
locality. without any water front, and less the
c9T Ssse are Inc simple facts Of the case and they
IA away Instantly with the mass OF false reasoning
on which some of the daily papers have oeen touno-
ing enlarged claims Of the value OF me astoria ora
his particular lot Of land II granted 10 any one,
would necessarily have 10 be granted 70 the As.
toria company. and with the admitted fact that
acreage land is worth not above $3.50 an acre IN
this locality (eVen with the riparian rights at
tscbed) and that the filing of sunken lands; win
will cost at least that amount per acre, II becomes
apparent that the appraisers have appraised these
lands at all they were worth when they put q
value OF 500 an acre upon them
lis 10 be noted here that had these appraisers.
under the guise of estimating the value OF these
sunken lands undertaken 10 estimate not lne EdIue
upland that would have approached very nearg
10 the ancient practice OF evying paronldl IiiouS
and borne but slight relation TO the aPRrWarseprs
duty in the matter. LA" En-