The Morris County chronicle. [volume] (Morristown, N.J.) 1877-1915, 1903-03-20
THE CANAL ABANDONMENT
TcoNrlNuED FROM FIRST rAeEl

clafed was hardly worth considering
Neither the state or amy one else
wanted it for purposes of navigation.
1t was perfectly plain as matter OF
fact that the property would be OF
greater advantage to the state seven
ty years hence than it would be now.
If the canal should be abandoned now
all the property would come under the
local taxation and that would be worth
more to the state than the possession
of the canal.
Mr. Corbin then proceeded to de-
scribe the manner in which the canal
company acquired its properties Some
were acquired by condemnation, some
were donated on the agreement that
as soon as it ceased to be used for
canal purposes it should revert to the
original owners while the rest it pur-
chased outright and holds title to 1t
in fee simple and it was this latter
class that the company hopes to sell
for enough to pay Off the 100000 in
bonds now outstanding.
The state had never given the COM
pany any rights in the waters OF the
state because it never had any toglye
and the water of a stream belonged to
the owners of the property along its
banks. The Lake Hopatcong people
were opposed to the bill because they
did not want the dam torn away.
Seventy years ago, continued the cor
poration lawyer, the canal company
had built dam raising Lake Hopat-
cong eleven feet. This did not divert
the flow and the owners were anxious
not to have the natural lake restored
as twas before the dam was built.
About 10,000,000 gallons of water day
now were sent eastward from the lake
through the canal feeder. Probably
as much was used in the westward
planes of the waterway.
"Why do you want to take the
water from the lake?" asked Mr.. Dial
rymple, member of the committee.
because we believe" replied Mr..
Corbin, THAT in raising the level of
the lake we acquired property right
in the additional storage we there Gre
ated If we can get the water to ,ler-
sey City we may save something out
of the wreck and hope to make little
money towards paying off our stock
holders"
"But don't the water revert to the
original owners of the land when the
canal is abandoned?" persisted the Pas
sale man.
Mr.. Corbin replied by quoting a
Massachusetts case, that of the Black
stone, in which, he said, the court
had decided the company had the
right to use the towpath for railroad
and to sell the water to manufacture
ers. If the change of use of the Nor
ris canal created an extra burden up
on any property, however, he admit
ted, the additional burden should be
paid for. There was no injustice in
tended to anybody in the bill, he in
sisted. Whatever of protection was
necessary to the property owners had
been intended to be included in the
measure. He demanded to know where
was the injustice in allowing the COM
pany to sell, if it could, part of its
right of way in Newark to trolley
company, and some of its lands else
where for other purposes, all to pay
off the 100000 of bonds.
Has not the Morris Canal and Bank
ing Company prior right to all the
waters in the Rockaway watersheds ?''
asked Mr.. Hillery.
"Oh no." replied Mr. Corbin. 81
wish we had"
"Then do you mean to say private
company may go in the water shed and
take water without your consent ?"
No, of course not. Not even the
state could do that"
In his following remarks Mr.. Corbin
asserted that the canal company had
deeds in fee simple for all its lands at
the Morris canal basin in Jersey City.
The state, he asserted, had never
given it anything there. In answer
to a question from Mr. Fielder, he adj
mitted that the legislature had in
1866 passed a law making grant of
riparian lands in the basin to the can
al company, on certain conditions, but
said company did not meet the condi-
tions, and that the state withdrew
the grant and later granted the same
lands to the Lehigh Valley Railroad
Company, which was today their own
er, and had paid nearly half a million
dollars for them.
Mr.. Garrabrant of Newark, wanted
to know why, if the state had no
water rights, the company wanted a
release, as provided for in the bill, of
state rights, and the corporation law
yer lodged the query by saying the
bill had only followed the language OF
the charter.
"There have been stories that New
ark paid a great amount, several mil
lion dollars, to us for water" said Mr..
Corbin. "Such statements are ridicul-
Gus. Neither Newark or Jersey City
ever paid a cent to the canal company
for water.
Mr.. Schumann of Hudson, wanted
to know if all that was desired was tc
sell property for which the company
had deed in fee simple, why it could
not be done without the legislature
taking any action, and Mr.. Corbin eX-
planned that the property was being
used for canal purposes and that use
could not be abandoned unless legsla.
tion was had, without the liability OF
the property being lost. If the cana
was abandoned without authority
there was nothing to prevent any com
pany stepping in and taking the cana
route for railroad route by simply
Hlinm thnir man at once few