New-York tribune., 1902-10-21
MEANS MILLIONS TO CITY.
,,-sTIcE STECKLER GIVES DECISIONS
THAT NAY AFFECT WATERFRONT
PROPERTY OF GREAT VALUE.

,rstioe Steckler in the Supreme Court. yester-
- rendered two decisions of Importance, be
~a,,se they may affect the title to waterfront
.-onsrtv worth millions of dollars. Much Of this
-,nertv had been offered to the city at sale. but
rnstice Steckler holds that il has always been
re nroperty Of the city. The land is made
land
The first decision was one denying the appli-
-, of the Kniokerbocker Ice Company for
: Injunction 10 restrain the city Department
- noclzs and Ferries and the Grand and Forty
eaoop5 Street Ferry Railway Company from
..,.,r,,cting bulkhead on water land that the
..nv,sv company claims at the North River
,...y,een Forty-second and Forty-third-sts.
- q decision of considera BILE length Justice
e,acl,ler hol6s that under the terms Of the Don
a, charter Of the city, in 1856. as confirmed by
..hev authorities since the city had had title in
- land in question since IL was made for il is
N land that was once under water. This land
,.s ouce offered 10 the city for $4,000, and the
,,rchass was recommended by the Dock Board.
ssle of The land TO the city had been again pro-
rosed. and many persons and corporations were
Interested.
The second decision was in suit 10 determine
,i1s Of land in Exterior-st., which is in the
BROTHERHOOD Of East Ninety-hrst-st and East
o. and is bulkhead property. The suit
.,,,ol,t by a large number Of persons, and was
,,,ou-n as the whitman case. Justice Steckler
affirmed the assertion that the city's title 10
the land was Good,
commissioner Hawkes.. Of the Dock Depart
.,ort said yesterday that he did not know how
rnuch other waterfront property was affected
bv this decision. but il might affect great deal
of il. lie continued
: colld not tell, without examining the titles
- he other waterfront property now held by
o-i,ate individuals. The history OF the private
aarrership of the city waterfront property Is q
snort one. The DOngan charter gave the city all
ne land between high and low water marks.
This right Was confirmed ia l4@O by the Mont
eomerie cha~rer, which in addition conveyed 10
sbs civ 81. I'D of land 400 feet wide outside the
lowHsttr mark. When the city. fifty years
aro wished TO improve the waterfront, but was
unsbk 10 do so owing TO the expense involved.
n gsve 10 private individuals the title 10 the
ianS which they should make from the shore TO
The bulkhead on condition that they should build
the bulkheads. Unfortunately the city did not
DO as the Land Commission is now Going at my
suggestion, insert clauses that the city should
have the right 20 take the land whenever il de-
sired ID. paying the price which il had received
plus the cost OF the improvements made upon it,
II the city had only given leasehold instead
Of q title outright il would not now be obliged
10 pay large sums for the land which IL once
owned IN order 10 make improvements. II II
WAS found that the titles OF the other LANDS
contained the same conditions as those IN the
deeds of the pieces passed upon by Justice
Steckler and that the conditions had not been
fulfilled Il is probable that his decision IN these
cases would apply 10 those titles. II ls possible
that the city is entitled TO property worth mill-
ions but that cannot be determined until . -
known what the conditions were ana II they
were fulfilled. ] am having a catalogue OF the
waterfront property made, This has never been
done before The records are much scattered
and should he brought together.