The star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1908-1909, 1908-12-28
FINAL HEARING IN
STATE VS. LEH|GH
IS BEGUN TODAY
Imposing Array of Legal Talent
in Chancery Court on
Both Sides.
JOSEPH H. CHOATE Is
ASSISTING NEW JERSEY
History of Case Is Practically
the History of the Growth
of This State.

Final hedring in the suit brought by
the State of New Jersey against the
Lehigh Valley Railroad Company to
determine the ownership of fifty acres
of land under water in Jersey City the
terminal OF that road, known as the
basin of 81" brought an imposing ar
ray Of legal talent to Chaneery cham
bers in this city today. The decision
OF Vice-Chancellor Stevens in the noted
case Is almost certain to be reserved,
the lawyers predict.
Thousands of pages of printed docu-
ments, maps, copies of legislative enact
ments and otherdocumentary proof We're
piled high on the desks. Present for the
state were Attorney General Edmund
Wilson, Chandler w. Riker and former
Judge Bennett Van Sickel. Joseph IL.
Choate, former ambassador to Great
Britain, who also Is assisting the attor-
ney-general in the case, was not pres
ent, The suit is defended by William
ii. Corbin and his partner, former Su>
preme Court Justice Collins of Jersey
City, Richard V. Lindabury, of this
city, and John Johnston. Not for years
have to many lawyers of note been en-
gagged in a single suit in Chancery
chambers here.
The history of the litigation and the
incidents leading up to it, are as re-
cited in the States bill of complaint, as
follows:
The Morris Canal and Banking Com
pany was chartered in 1924 to construct
canal between Easton, Pa, and the
tidewater section of the Passaic River,
the charter being amended In 1928 to
permit the company to extend the canal
(the present abandoned Norris CanaD
to Jersey City, which was done. The
property was to revert to the state in
80 years upon the payment by the lat
Ter of its value, or, IL this option were
not exercised, the property should re-
vert to the State fifty years thereafter,
without payment Of money.
Legislative Grant.
In 1867 the Legislature granted to the
Morris Canal and Banking Company
the property now in dispute, as a ter
minal basin, with the proylso that
access through it. should be had 70
another interior basin then contem-
plated and built in 1872.
The grant was subject to the charter
of the company, making it returnable
to the State in 1928. The annual rental
for the basin and canal was fixed at
SIS, 900, but the old Morris Canal Com
pany was given the option of paying
S350,001 in one lump for the entire
period.
In 1871 the report Of the first Board
Of Riparian Commissioners, recon-
mending the leasing or sale of riparian
rights to surrounding property, was ap-
proved and the property was sold at
$50 foot. The basin, however, the
mouth to which was kept open, was
excluded. it is contended.
In 1887. under an assignment from
the Morris Canal and Banking COM
pany, the Lehigh Valley Railroad Com
pany exercised its option of paying a
lump sum, in lieu of rent, and paid
S350.0O0 to the State. For the $50 feet
across the mouth of the basin, the
railroad company also paid the ripa-
rian commissioners s4S, 900, or $50 a foot,
and, receiving a deed in fee simple, de-
clared. themselves the owner of the
aSin.
Canal Abandoned.
With the abandonment of the Morris
canal and the litigation growing out
Of it. the present suit was begun about
a year ago. The lease and assignment
by the Morris Banking and Canal
Company to the railroad was con
firmed by the Court of Errors and Ap-
peals, and the railroad company con-
tends that the granting of the deed ia
proof absolute that the ownership Of
the basin rests with the company. The
states contention is principally based
on the allegation that in granting this
deed the riparian commission exceeded
its powers and that the whole grant
comes under the terms of the canal
company's charter
The property IS now very valuable,
and is estimated to be worth at least
5,0000 900, although at the time the old
canal company began operations 1t
was mostly ooze and valueless,