The Jersey City news., 1902-12-19

once the residence of the aristocrats of
the city, to the Introduction of the troll
leys, the development of whose lines had
brought thousands of lots accessible to
the citizens who preferred to live on the
Heights where the surroundings were
more agreeable. That state of affairs,
Mr.. Record said, had no bearing on the
value of railroad property. Wherever. the
railroad had developed the adjoining
property had been made useless for res
idential purposes. Applying. he continued,
the law of supply and demand in old
horse car days, the supply was limited
of accessible land but the trolleys had
changed all that and the area of Access
sible property was unlimited. The de-
mand for lots in this city was limited To-
cally but the demand for railroad prop
erty was continental.
"The demand said Mr. Record, "for
shore front is a United States demand,
but the demand for lots in Jersey City is
local.
CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY.
Reverting to the proposition set up he
said by the railroad lawyers that the val
ues of contiguous property to main stem
should be fair comparison in determin-
ing values of railroad property Mr.. Rec
ord asserted that such an argument was
worm eaten and threadbare and had been
repudiated by every intelligent tribunal
in which it had been addressed. He
cited the close of the Central Railroad
fight as reported in 20 Vroom. where the
Court held that such a principle could
not be entertained
During tLs7 stage of his remarks Mr..
Record, adopting the argumentum ad
hominem method, caused much amuse-
ment by quoting from Mr.. Edwards's
brief in the Central Railroads fight in
1895, when, as Mr.. Record said, Mr.
Edwards held an entirely different opin-
ion from his present one.
In fact he said, the best answer
to Edwards is Edwards"
Mr.. Edwards at that moment entered
the room and rose to make a correction
to the effect that the situation then was
a result of the suit the city got justice.
Mr.. Record wouldn't hear the Interrupt
ton.
ASSESSORS LECTURED.
Mr.. Record then proceeded to lecture
the assessors ON what he termed their
odd figures in assessing property, and
took another shy at Messrs. Edwards,
w. HI. Corbin and Charles L. Corbin,
counsel in the Erie elevator case, none
of whom at the time was in the room.
Mr.. Record paid tributes to all three as
great lawyers, but in the case at present
made mistakes in their facts as to
values. AS for the assessors they must,
he said, add to the area of the shore
fronts. BY maps which he submitted
there ought to be seventeen and mot
fourteen lots to the. acre He also
pointed out that since 1888 the assess
ments on shore fronts had steadily in
creased, and taking as an example the
stock yards, he said in 1887 the local
assessors fixed its assessment at $685.
900 while today the figures were $522,-
600.
This demonstrates he said, .'that if
property is contiguous as this is to a rail-
road how can you assess railroad prop
erty at any less ratio?"
TERMINAL FACILITIES.
Taking up Mr.. W. H. Corbin' 's-con-
tention that the exterior lines of railroad
piers varied with the Riparian Board
or the q. S. Government, Mr. Record
contended that it was not so. Both au-
thorities never put the lines back, but
pushed them forward to meet the de-
mands of commerce. The latter part of
Mr.. Records plea for increased values
was on the Importance of terminal fa-
cilities in this city and their priceless
value to the railroads. The "adventitious
value" he said, of the p. r. r. is due
to its terminal facilities at Chicago,
Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Jersey
City, and they cannot be duplicated for
money. The property of the companies
in rails, bridges, depots, sidings, equip
ment and SO forth, had certain market
able value; but the terminal was beyond
computation in value, and he insisted
that Jersey City didn't reap enough
benefit from the railroads whose ter
minals are in her boundaries.
In closing Mr. Record, after pointing
out the omissions in the taxing Of the
two tracts alluded to previously, said
that when the railroads reply to his
argument he hoped,the Assessors would
put to them the following questions
which he had framed
WAS not the sale of the Wander
beck property adjoining the p R. R.
yards in 1891 bona fide transaction in
the open market at the rate of $4,000
per, acre?
2.-Why does not this transaction
establish Che value of adjacent railroad
terminal property?
3.-Would not the Vanderbeek prop
erty bring more in the open market today
if it included the title to. the city dock.
An the Pennsylvania Coal Com
pany purchase, why did the Pennsylvania
Railroad pay ST. ,000 per acre if thu
land was not worth that price? VIII.
did it not buy a cheaper piece of lane
upon the shore front elsewhere?
5.-Same query as to the Dodge prop
erty purchase at $4,000 per acre?