The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-08-28
dupuEssTON OF HARBoR
 LINE BLUNDERS

7a5 a 6uD0ESsTON OF HARBoR LINE BLUNDERS
 Tne harbor line question has taken Qn a new phase. In effect, it is a
 haxl Of involved and complicated < &neetionsI which can only, to all app 4eernnceA be cleared up by the courts < the close of such protracted and ee1<1y litigation as has heretofore been 5 6f1xely deprecated by Mayor Lee.
 one June 7th of this year, the Board 0f Aldermen adopted, by a vote of IA xo x the report of special committee, 4ppolnfed to discontinue the existent &1ty harbor line and to lay out a new Inc The resolutions embodied in <hax report 'tdisestablished the pres ent city harbor line on the west side 5of the Pequonnock river, extending nouth from stratford avenue" and ssaestgnate and establish a harbor line cn the west side of Bridgeport harbor md the Peuuonnock river
 from Stratford avenue to the. outer sB&Accns said harbor line being desig- n4fed and established in exact coinci- dence With the U. s. harbor line ap- Nov. 1e. 1906. and being in accordance win the partfcular description here ,5z7p4ker contained. etc.
 Ihen follows s.the particular .descrfp- tions which in very technical terms foeates the line from the Stratford 5evenue bridge southerly
 4o point 50 feet northeasterly of the Inner beacon; thence southwesterly on Fl line parallel with a line joining cen <1lee of inner and outer beacons, and s4zE feet northwesterIy and at right &1G1ee thereto to the centre of the f14n4k breakwater; thence westerly to
 {e southeasterly end, Of Main street. Ihe Resolution is self f-contradictory 8Ipn an important point. First, it
 <ablis1es a harbor line t'1n exact <pdncidence with the U. s. harbor I4e", which line extends beyond the cl<ter beacon and nearly ito the light 1o1ee: then, it establishes another line <o6ncfdert with the government line to point apparently between the inner Und outer beacons, and thence diverg- 11E from the government line to run Q Inc foot of Main street. That is, <t<e resolution. while purporting to es- t11lish one city harbor line. really es- tQb1isEes two. and these conflict with e&ch other
 Under the first line, the Locomo- b1le CO would acquire about dozen arre4 Of water area which it previously ende4vored to obtain but was unsuc- e1onfn
 vim this basis of facts. it Is readily zen that serious legal questions come upl Can the Board of Aldermen re- Gcfnd its resolutions of June 7th, which were legally adopted and received Mzyorial approval? Undoubtedly, it oau do 50. but its action of June 7th Eave. rights to. the Locomobile Com pany which cannot be taken away without compensation. This is made certain by the action of the General Assenbly. taken at the instance of the exky. relative to damages in such cases. ana which was strongly opposed by the Farmer. The Aldermen can re- peind and amend, but at cost of the nBEEaised value of the 12 or the 24 ncres granted by the first and second lines, respectively. With regard to the water area. fronting Seaside Park, the city should be willing to pay what ever damages might be awarded.
 A second legal question is whether resolutions establishing divergent har- Dor lines, can be considered valid, or ehaH be regarded as void and Of no effect-in other words. can there legal
 
 ly be two contradictory city harbor lines If valid. the courts must be es1ked to decide which of the two shall obtain; if void, not only the 12 or 24 acres granted to the Locomobile Com %pany but also the Il or 12 acres grant ed to the railroad company, revert to me city.
 To q layman. it would seem that the reeolutions are void and of no effect. but the lawyers and the courts may reach different conclusion. They may hold that the city line is legal only % far as it exactly coincides with Che government line.
 Certainly, the Lee administration has gotten the city into a most unhappy and probably costly snarl. In fact, if8 treatment of this harbor line ques- ffou has been a succession of blupders. ana not the least of them is the ac- f}on of June 7th.