New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-12-25
NEW JERSEY NEWS.
CANAL COMPANY WILLING
WOULD TAKE S2,750.O00.
". II. Corbin Says 1t Would Gi0e
State Al Its Property for That.


was held IN Chancery Chambers. at Jersey city.
yesterday. Ex-Governor Griggs presided and ex-
Governor voorhees, was present The different In
ferests IA the wsrk Of the commission connected
with tie proposed abandonment OF the Morris
Canal were REPRESENTED By such well known coun-
sel as Robert =. McCarter. Attorney General OF
New-Jersey who appeared for the State; William
"a Corbln and Henry S. Driulzer OF counsel Tor
the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company George Rec
ord, corporation attorney for Jersey CITY, water
W. Ross. general attorney for the Delaware. Lack
avranna and Western Railroad: Roderick Bying-
ton. counsel for the Lake Hopatc1ng Protective AS
ISOLATION Z. A. II. Lewis. counsel ior MIS- AOraHn
s. Hewitt James n. Neghbor. counsel Tor the
Byram Cove Land Company and David Callahah'
Frederick J. Faulks Of Lndabury. Depue d
Parks counsel for the Borough OF Lake Hopst-
cong and Mrs Abram 5 Hewitt; {. Frank kireker'
counsel for the Society for the Establishment OF
Useful Manufactures at Paterson Charles NJ SteF-
Iett Of Paterson and Mr.. Reynolds. OF MorTistoWa.
The Newark Board OF Trade was not represented.
Ex-Governor Griggs opened the proceedings by
asking Il any present desired TO be heard on
the continuation OF the Norris Canal as medium
Cor transportation Mr.. Byington replied that he
would Ike 70 say something upon the subject as to
whether the State should compel the canal COM
pauy OF its lessees 10 continue navigation Mr..
Griggs replied that that feature was matter for
the state and for the commission 10 attend To-
RATES FOR TRANSPORTATION.
William Il Corbin said that he had. in response
q
On the subject Of transportation rates BY canal and
by railroad learned that the rates OF the Deiawa-e
I.ackawanua and Western. the Erie and the New
York SusQuehanna and Western railroads were
substantially the same. The rates OF the LacEta-
wanna were apparently higher, but only apparently.
hecause they owned their own coal, while the coal
carried by the other railroads was not owned by
themselves. ar. CoTbin said he would make \
further report the commission on this matter al
q later oay-
u. hat he had mt a
brief on behalf Of the interests Jersey City, but
would do so in g few days. He then spoke AT some
length the question o. the abandonment OF the
canal So far he had been able TO learn the
impression prevailed in Jersey City that the USE
fulness Of the canal as a means OF transportation
was passed, and that in that capacity the canal
could be Of future advantage TO Jersey city
II was to-day believed to be an economic waste
70 maintain the canal further impression
prevalent IN Jersey City that Il the canal was
70 be abandoned and all is rights snd interests
were 10 be left in the fuI control ~ the canal
company the lessees, the company now IN con-
troll would develop only such parts OF the canal as
were OF value 10 II and would neglect those parts
of the canal which were not Of productive value
In its present condition the canal was a nuisance
70 Jersey City. but II IL should be wholly aoan-
d0ned II would become greater nuisance II
therefore, the wishes Of the lessees were TO be
ratified by the State the canal company should be
compelled execute a bond providing for the pro
lection Of Jersey City. Mr. Record also said that
II the canal should be abandoned for navigation
there were certain streets In Jersey City which
would be injgriously affected In that case the
city should be entitled TO the property.
STREETS MORE VALUABLE
South Bergen and other streets would be exceed
ingly valuable 20 Jersey City II navigation on the
canal should be abandoned. because OF their loca-
ton al river font The reversionary rights Of
Jersey City should. therefore be carefully guarded
by the commission in making fits report
Mr.. Record then declared that IN his belief. the
claim put forward that the Lehigh Valley Railroad
Company owned what known the canal basin
in Jersey Chg was untenable. and he questioned II
the railroad company ever had legally into
possession Of the basin He discussed this point
al great length quoting sections OF the charter
granted by the State 10 the Morris Canal and
Banking Company 10 show that every piece Of
property thus granted the canal would revert
20 the State after given number Of years. AS a
legal proposition. he said, the canal company
swned nothing absolutely. but had merely been
made trustee by the State for period Of either
ninety-nine or one hundred and nifty years by con-
oemnation unaer the former period. and by re-
versiOnary right in Of the latter period If
poses. but had always been used for TaHroad par-
poses, unaer the charter the canal company had
charter expressly provided that the company
cept for canal purposes he caaaf BASIN was Of
extraorainary value and II i lad been given 70
and Interests OF The state in the canal basin,
Mr.. Record then proceeded earnestly TO criticise
the bin providing for the Abandonment Of canal
lature- lie charged that THIS bin had been pre-
OF the Lehigh valley Railroad Company.
CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The bin was clearly unconstitutional and the
abandonment Of the canal the lines laid down in
that act would lead to tnnunerable lawsuits. He
declared that such act. II passed by the legis~
lsture would not accomplish the desired object
and thai its passage would be legislation OF the
most vicious character. AS a means TO the end of
settlement OF this greatly complicated question
3lr Record suggested that the legislature might II
Il thought best determine that the canal company
was entitled 10 further consideration at the hands
OF the State II the legislature should decide II
could pass an act giving tie canal company the
privilege OF abandoning the canal the payment
10 Il BY the StaDe Of be determined by a
connfsslon The state could then. by such legis-
fations take fun control OF the canal and
power 10 dispose Of the canal pTSperty IN Whole
or piecemeai. as il should best Otherwise IL
settlement, lei il have the privilege of paving TO
ne state such a compensation for the property as
me eenlnisson TO be appointed by the legislature
Asked BY Mr. Griggs what provision could he
made for the protection of Individual property
owners. II his suggestion should be adopted Nj
be LEFT 20 the courts and that nothing tbaf the
commission or the legislature could DO would pre-
terests Mr. Record. after some discussion If his his
feature Of the matter and after the chairman had
erfy owners at Lake HopatconE ana ejFevSterra
Should detrine that the iet y Ire re ,
were not entitled to any further consderatton m,
Il wished 70 do So and 90 It's way and tSeI ISl
let the State take possession Of the properly, nd
concerned. " Oh
MONROE CURRTEs VIEW.
Monroe currie. who represented the estat. n,
william end J. Currie. objected the abandon
Inent OF the canal the plan which had bee,
proposed in the bin which was presented 70 the