Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1911-04-05
LAWYERS ARGUE
TERMS Of CANAL
DECISION DECREE
Vice-ChancelIOr Stevens Hears
Views in Lehigh Val.
ley Case.
MAY TAKE BASIN AWARD
TO u. s. SUPREME COURT
Railroad Attorney lntimates APP
peal May Be Made in Jer-
sey City Action.

The fixing of the terms of the decree
by which yice-Chancellor Stevens de
cided some time age against the Lee
high Valley Railroad Company in its
claim to the big basin of the Morris
canal at the Jersey City terminal &C.
cupied the time OF the court for sew
eral hours today. the lawyers arguing
for the corporations interested being
William H. Corbin and Richard V.
Lindabury, while Attorney-Genera. Ed
net Van Syckel argued their points
for the State. The suggestions offered
were taken under advisement and fur
Their argument will be heard May IL.
The first gun was fired by Mr.. Cor
bin. who said hat the decree ordered
the State to pay US money."
Your honor added Mr.. Corbin, has
no effective power to enforce such u
thing except by law. The result O. the
decree simply gives us relief and makes
endless litigation. We have had sad
experience with matters where money
has been ordered paid by the Staie.
The State OF New York has also "a
experience with the Erie canal, where
more than $4,000, 900 is still hang ng
fire. 1t is unfortunate, but it is a
fact that we cannot rely ON the State
for the enforcement of the decree"
Suggest. Rebate Clause.
Mr.. Corbin next suggested that the
decree should contain a provision Tor a
rebate OF the $4,000, which the canal
company paid after receiving certain
conc essions from the Riparian Commits
sion in 1889.
Former Judge Van Syckel remarked
that ii would be necessary to get an
appropriation from the Legislature to
pay this one md then Mr.. Linda
bury interpolated that the decree should
NOT become effect se until it is paid.
1t was then intimated by Mr.. Corbin
that the case may be carried up 10 the
Supreme Court of the United States,
n he followed it up with a brief re-
view of the act of 1907 Under which the
proceedings Were begun. He insisted
that the decree ought to contain q
description of the property involved,
but he v~ice-Chancellor said that this
vas not necessary.
MIR. CorDii vas next told by the court
tina 1t was not considered necessary
to decide whether or not the suit was
bought under one general act and that
II did not seem to be incumbent upon
the court 10 decide whether or not the
improvements made in the property
We're nee Jsary. The vice-chanceIlor
added that it would be improper to
settle this phase of the fight as sug-
gested by counsel for the interested
corporations.
The Point Decided.
The only thing | decided he ex-
planned. was whether thai deed was a
good deed. l have not considered,
either, the question whether the tax or
part of the tax should be refunded. If
those taxes were levied on the theory
that the fee was vested in the railroad
company, l will say the general rule
is that the wner of the fee pay the
taxes"
Mr.. Corbin then reiterated his state
ment that the property should be de-
scribed in the decree, and said that this
was allowed to be equitable on all
sides" and that the court should say
how the State should find the interest.
THE refund of taxes ought to be
settled upon with no further evidence
put in Mr.. Lindabury.
He showed by a table that the rail-
road company had paid, since IT as
sumed control of the canal, taxes or
second-class property amounting 10
$371, 4S1. 81, besides making payments on
hrst-class property.
Other figures were fired at the court
by Mr.. Van Syckel, who said that
during the last nineteen years the
basin property had an assessed valua-
ton of $1,201, 773, that 1857, 142 was paid
for the lease and 1878, 1913 was expended
for improvements.
Phase Court Had Not Considered.
The court remarked that II had not
considered this phase of the subject,
and it was then that 1t was suggested
that further evidence be taken, which
will be done on the day named.
Another point insisted upon by Mr..
Corbin was that the record should set
forth more clearly the evolution of the
title to the Lehigh Valley, and that the
subordinate terminal companies should
be placed upon the. record also. The
court, as to the latter point, however,
said that 1t was not in issue.
But" Mr.. Corbin protested, "the
attorney-general says there may be
further litigation coming and there
should be a clear understanding in the
matter. The object of the suit is not
to stir up more trouble. TO get a stab
at the banking company. but simply tc
settle matters or an equitable basis. >
ANY decree would bind these com
panies," commented the court, "as vel
as 1t would bind the State"
"FaIse,. Merely TechnicaI.
1t was then explained by the court
that the word false used In the de.
cree in connection with the transaction:
by which the company secured tht
basin had been used not in the sense
of fraudulent, but only technically. II
had been used by the lawyers of the
state and Mr.. Corbin's objection wa,
quite vehement.
Docs your decision mean they have
the right to immediate possession p
asked Mr. Corbin at one point.
II have decided hat the different
rights the company has are rights de,
pendent upon the basin act of 1857 anC
other acts which authorize the lease,
replied the judge.
SYSTEMA1IzING ACCOUNTS.