The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1905-03-28

oresFien wbc.ha. 4he ginarian Commits
s,.,nsrs had ~ $ iur;s,l;etioa "a make a
she II ta.s prssc,ty of t,le State. Ii
thew md not then tbis property viii re-
vscf to The stare and it is the most val
uahle part of the eana
"a fhc lslI GOES through Without
amendment fbe Commissioners sill. cfYer
tie State's rights ia thus properly for
sale. and in view Of the claim of the
s.c:.ieb Railroad Company that The State
has no right. any purchaser at such sale,
other tlian The railroad company. would
cnly Be- huxing = lawsuit. and therefore
could atyer4 to offer only nominal price.
n & nI,in. therefore. that Is the bill
stands the Lehigh Company will be the
only bidder at such sails ana will GET the
STAGES right At = nominal price.
..I5 tba Stafe has NO right in this
,ronerty 4 sbopld rot be- sold Ii ali.
Il tbe nronerty belongs to the state.
+hat - sho,ld be first established and
tben tbe nrona,tv affere, for sale.
Nr pnf,ield then cave / detailed ac-
oa.nt t. ~ nro.oe,,ir,os of tbe legisla-
tnre IN tbe hin mn q the present time.
He sa;a tbat h. ,yould not debate the
onastien u q whether Jersey City or the
Tabieb yallev Railroad owned the ba-
Sin referred TO ii The amendment. The
courts would pass upon the question,
and nobody supposed that such men as
John n. Griggs. George T. Werts and
Foster sI VOORHEES, would submit a re-
port and a bill which would prevent any
interest Of the State from being fully
protected. The bill under consideration
did. IN fact. provide for the adequate
protection Of the rights Of the State and
Of every municipality concerned.
To attack this bill, not on its merits,
but 1t the last moment Of its eonsidera-
tion. and 10 submit amendments which
scarcely could be eomprehended. was
not. he feared. for commendabIe pur-
pose.
Mr.. Robbins. of Burlington. objected
10 the wording Of Mr.. Hamill's amend
ment and proposed another which COW
cred the ground thai Mr.. Hamill sought.
1t provided that the States rights in
Tie Jersey CITY basin should not he sold
until the ouestion Of lille had been adj
Indicated by the courts. After a little
argument. Mr.. Hamill agreed to accept
the Robbins amendment IN lieu Of his
own. which he withdrew.
Leader Dufield opposed the Robbins
amendment. II was wholly unnecessary.
he said. and would not hefp the bin.
sIr. Elvins. of Atlantic. said the his
tory Of attempted canal legislation had
been one Of infamy. as everybody knew.
Possibly there were members Of the leg
isiature who knew as much about at
tempfed canal legislation As the gentle
man from Essex knew Eyen this last
bill bore the earmarks Of the III repute
Of its parents The amendment was en-
tirelv proner. In fact it was necessary
to safeguard the rights Of the State and
he hoped It would pass
Mr. Robbins said that # probabIv
woua be hnpossibIe to amend the nm
% as entirely to safeguard the rights of
the State The Republican leader had
no right TO exnect every member of The
Honse "a fan 4 with III of b;s on;nions
on tb;s hin Tba amerdmon+ With 10
had offered was ne.ossarv 4 order =
narflv norfoc+ n, In
H. rnesa,5 u.as .o.es..,.. .-;,,;aa I.
sa;d .,,;aa X as
vv,aa - Ia ~. 41.4 Is 8
~ s4.+a M soa, s,,..,s.,.a III
I'm a. on,u ,o...,
of ~ r,os4 o,,;aoat ss