The Morris County chronicle. [volume] (Morristown, N.J.) 1877-1915, 1903-03-20
THE CANAL
ABANDONMENT
Arguments Made BY Paid At
torneyS Prove Unconvinc
ing to Lawmakers.
BILL WILL PROBABLY FAIL.

/ lures several OF the Attorneys Finest
Arguments. Too Much Time was
| Used so That but one side could be
Heard. The Other will be Presented
next Tuesday.
Morris county was an important
factor at the hearing, which the House
Committee on Railroads and Canals
gave on the bill providing for the
abandonment of the Morris Canal in
the Assembly chamber, Tuesday after
noon. A large delegation of the lead
ing citizens of this county was pre-
sent.
! Mr. Hillery, the energetic member
from Boonton, took an active part in
the discussion and from time to time
asked pertinent questions of the astute
counsel for the corporations interested
in the abandonment scheme, which
required all the technical ingenuity of
the resourceful lawyers to answer in
anything like a plausible manner.
Besides the Norris men present
there was a large delegation of citizens
of Newark, led by Mayor Henry NJ.
Doremus and Major Carl Lentz to
advocate the passage of the measure
while an equally large throng headed
by r. d. Byington, a lawyer, appeared
to oppose it. A large array of counsel
including William II. Corbin for the
Lehigh Valley and Robert NJ. Nc
Carter for the Delaware, Lackawanna
n ALI al
ceedings.
Although the hearing was given
ostensibly by the committee on Rail-
roads and Canals, the House held no
session during the meeting and the
members were with few exceptions
in their seats. The lobbies and gal
laries too were crowded and taken al
together it was one of the most inn
portant proceedings Of the session.
Most of the afternoon was taken up
by William II. Corbin, who in opening
his speech said he appeared for the
Lehigh Valley Railroad Company and
the Morris Canal and Banking Com
pany. He began by pitching into the
newspapers of the state for the man
ner in which they have, almost unani-
mously, condemned the proposed
scheme of abandonment. Many of
them he said had declared that there
was something in the bill" That
statement had evidently been thought
lessly made and had no foundation in
fact. Although the Lehigh Valley
Company desired the passage of the
bill, it had had no intention of having
it introduced this session until urged
to do so by Newark.
Mr.. Corbin said he was ready to ans
wer any question which might be put
to him considering the contents and
purport of the pending measure as the
matter had been SO generally mis-
understood and there was so much
miSconceptiOn concerning it. Then the
lawyer gave a sketch of the history of
the canal, with which the people of
Morris are familiar The stock of
the company he said remained to-day
at 81, 200, 900, the same as it had been
for several years, and was scattered
among $40 owners in all parts of the
State. Half of this stock was pre-
ferred and half common, while bonds
secured by mortgage for $500 600 cover
ed all the company's property. The
bonds originally amounted to $l,000,-
600, but some time ago half of them
were retired.
The canal was free one, he declar-
ed and any one had the right to navi-
gate it, in fact many of the boats
which passed throught it were owned
by the men who nayigated them.
Never had the canal been a great
paying property. 1t was originally
built for the purpose of carrying coal
from Washington, the then terminus
of the Delaware, Lackawanna and
Western Railroad to tide water.
When the Lackawanna built its Boon
ton branch, it ceased to be profitable,
and if operated to-day to it's full ex-
tent could not carry more than a small
proportion of the tonnage which the
railroad carries.
At this point Mr.. Hillery put a
pertinent question to Mr.. Corbin and
in reply the lawyer said that the Lee
high Valley leased the canal before
the invention of the Bessemer process
of manufacturing steel made railroad
building very expensive, because the
company believed then that the canal
was about to become an Invaluable
property paying large dividends.
The charter Of the canal company
had peculiar provision which exempt
ed its property from taxation as long
as it was used for canal purposes, its
consideration of which it was proyid-
ed that in 1923 the state could take
possession Of the canal at cost price
to be fixed by ten commissioners, and
later by legislative enactment that
time was extended to 1878 when the
state could take the canal without
paying anything for it.
Notwithstanding that clause in its
charter, when the state began to tax
railroad and canal property in 1864 it
assessed this property and ever since
the canal has been paying taxes to
the state, under protest, which
amounts to more than the whole in
come of the property.
Mr. Corbin denied that the canal had
even been practically abandoned. Dur
ring the last year seven hundred and
twenty boats had carried freight
through the canal. AS a money earn
ing property the canal was absolutely
without utility, Moreover the canal
4 had been declared a nuisance and res
TcoNTINrED oN roURrH pAaEl