The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1902-02-03
N 'DERhOI 7 S
WARNING.
Points Out the Danger
Ct Speedily Pressing
Water Front
Cases.
JOURNALS DUPuC|TY
How That Sheet Worked
Against the Interest
Of This City.
MUNICIPAL HISTORY
How the Former Corporation
Counsel Saved the Citi-
zens $4,000.

CONGRESSMAN Allan McDermott sent
letter TO the Board of Finance this morn
fEg in reference to his offer to assist the
new Corporation Counsel in prosecuting
the suits to recover the city's rights 10
portions of the water front. This is the
text of the letter.
Jersey City, February 8, 1902.
To the Honorable the Board of Finance
nt.emen-When l was appointed Cor
poration Attorney of Jersey City judg-
ment had been obtained against the city
by James H. Elmendorf on account OF
extra work. in the construction of a
road in the former township of Green
willie, the proceedings being had under an
act drawn by the late Governor Albeit,
who was Mr. Elmendorfs counsel at the
time of his appointment to the office OF
Corporation Counsel of Jersey City. TIE
fact of this previous employment pre-
vented Mr.. Albeit from representing the
city in the litigation, and the case was
placed in my hands. believed the act
to be unconstitutional and contended for
this proposition during five years of liti-
CATION. When I resigned the office OF
Corporation Attorney rendered my ser
vices to continue the litigation. They
were accepted in the spirit in which they
were rendered, ana, after the city had
been twice defeated, had the pleasure
of obtaining a decision in favor of the
constitutional point, Chief Justice Beas-
ley delivering the opinion invalidating the
legislation The saving to the city was
about $4,000. j did not ask or receive any
compensation from the city for the work
performed after my resignation, believing
it my duty, as 1 left the citys employ
ment Of my own will, to press to final
conclusion the only point upon which the
case would be won.
In 1881 1 commenced several suits to test
the right Of the public 10 access to the
Hudson River. The Legislature passed a
bill to take away that right. 1t was ve-
toed by Governor Ludlow, passed over his
veto by the Senate, and was defeated in
the House by an exposure of the bribery
that had induced it's passage; and it may
be here remarked that, in the attempt of
Jersey City to secure her right on the
water front, there has always seemed to
be a long and willing purse in the hands
of the opposition. After the defeat of the
bill, there was a conference of certain
citizens of Jersey City-of whom Major
Pangborn, then editor of the Evening
journal, was one-certain railroad Off
ciais and the Board of Finance and Taxa
tion. The city was in financial straits at
the time, and an understanding was ar
rived at that the suits should be held in
abeyance, and the city receive thirty
thousand dollars year. The arrangement
et,o Of nfro1 1f
because it could not be- Many years later
I was surprised to learn that the only
payment made under this arrangement
was the thirty thousand dollars paid
while I was City Attorney. In 1898 pre-
sented the matter of the obstruction Of
the water front to the Grand Jury, and
several indictments were found against
different corporations, and the same year
the litigation over Thirteenth street was
commenced in the Court of Chancery.
The finding of the indictments was vigor-
ously attacked by the Evening Journal"
Of this city, which insisted that the city
had no rights in the water front. I sent
a letter to the paper and offered to give
a thousand dollars to any charitable in
stitution In the city if the indictment for
blocking Thirteenth street was tried and
found wanting. The letter was received,
but not published, or answered Upon ap-
plication by the counsel of the corpora
tions affected. all the indictments were
dismissed. This was done so expeditions
~ and quietly that the public was not
even disturbed by newspaper account of
the fact, and I learned of 1t only upon
calling at the office of the District At
torncy to submit the testimony taken in
the civil suit.
IN accepting the proposition made b,-
my successor in the office of Corporation
Counsel 10 continue in the water front
cases ! distinctly stated that I would not
make ans calm for compensation. my IN
teation being TO pursue the same course
that took in the Elmendorf case AS you
are aware, the whole proceeding was con-
Quoted with the personal knowledge OF
the Mayor, and / was therefore surprised
ri one can be surprised after seeing
what ! have seen in this struggle for the
c:ty's rigllts--to learn of his veto Of your
action. His coursc relieves me of any
duty In the premises, and / therefore
Withdraw my offer 70 continue in the
eases. ] have weighed the opposition TOO
cften to believe that the city can win
the valuable rights to which 1t Is entitled
If the Mayor of the city docs NOT want
success. The same paper that decried
ms indictments eommends the Mayors
course, and says that the suits will now
be speedily pressed. Allow me TO give
ven the waxning that any attempt to
= = = = -