Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1911-02-25
viii Appeal from Recent
Decision in Chan
Gerry Court.
JERSEY CITY TERMINAL i
RIGHTS ARE INVOLvED
Procedure Not Yet Decided Upon
by Officials of Railroad
Corporation.
COMPLETE STOCKS


Lehigh Valley Railroad Company ex-
pected an adverse Chancery decision
on the basin property at Jersey City"
This was the statement of an official
Of the railroad company made here to-
day.
The admission strengthens the sus-
picion that has been gaining In force
In certain quarters since the issuance
of the memorial" that the railroad
company tender of certain rights was
to lessen the effect of the decision In
question.
With the States right to the basin
property clearly defined. the public ef-
feet Of such decision would have been
startling had not the Lehigh's presenta-
ton of it's case been submitted just In
advance of the decision
Attitude of Public.
Prior to the decision 1t was generally
conceded that the railroad company
had gained in favor with the public. It
was apparently doing It's full share. It
was returning to the State certain
property and rights. 1t was holding on
to other rights and property on the an
nounced theory that the State had no
rights therein.
Just when the public mind was reach
ing the conclusion that the railroad
company had no hidden purpose in its
proposal, and that 1t was advocating
only what seemed fair and right, the
decision of ice-Chancellor Stevens is
announced.
The memorial" must now be revised.
There can be no legislation on the basis
therein suggested. The next move must
| come from the railroad company, and
| 1t must now deal with the facts as the
court has recently expounded them.
It is likely that the next move on
| the part of the Lehigh Valley will be
an appeal to the Court OF Errors and
| Appeals. William H. Corbin, of the
law firm of Collins & Corbin, of Jersey
City, counsel for the Lehigh railroad,
said this morning that he had not
studied the vice-chancellor's decision
yet and that therefore he could not
say whether his clients would be adj
vised to take an appeal or not.
When Mr.. Corbin was asked IL the
decision of the vice-chancellor would
have any effect on the offer made to the
State to abandon the Morris canal he
replied that he did not believe that 1t
would. If the offer is to remain un-
modified there is no other conclusion
than that the railroad company intends
to make a fight through the courts 20
retain control of the basin.
Ownership Considered.
Mr.. Corbin pointed out today that
the question of the ownership of the
basin was discussed at length in the
memorial sent to the Legislature urg-
ing legislation to allow the canal to
be abandoned.
The memorial points out that when
the Legislature of 1928 gave the Morris
Canal Company the right to continue
the canal to what Is now Jersey City
the company acquired by warranty
deeds from the associates of the Jer-
sey Company, owners of the property.
tracts of land reaching out to the
Hudson river front. whereon they con-
| structed the canal basin, now COM
monty known as the 'old BASIN"
which remains today practically as II
was seventy-five years ago. 1t Is a
plot about four hundred feet wide on
the Hudson river and about 1900 feet
long, according to the memorial The
State had previously granted to the
associates the right to build wharves.
docks and piers there for the benefit
of commerce and to appropriate the
In 1867 the State granted to the canal
company the big basin under the same
terms as the charter of the Morris
Canal and Banking Company. The
lands granted, with the improvements
thereon" were to revert to the State
on the same terms provided in the
original charter.
Gave Rights to Canal Company.
But the riparian commissioners, in
1889, made grant in fee simple to the
canal company of the States reserved
right In the big basin at $50 per foot.
The company paid $4S000 and also
1857, ,142 as Communication for the $4,000
year rent they were paying before
they acquired title from the riparian
board. On this point the memorial to
the Legislature says
1.-THE said sum of $4,000 was the
present value in 1889, If computed at 4
per cent. compound annually, of ST.
294, 1920 If paid in 1874, the year when
the State was to take the canal; or if
compounded at the rate per cent,
1t was the present value of $2.S91,627;
or, If compounded at the rate of per
cent, was the present value of $6,411.-
120."
Inc memorial Sdlu lllds lue Otdle .
interest would be protected by the
pending suit ant that the question of
ownership of the basin was there dis
cussed for the simple purpose of clear
ing some misunderstanding about 1t.
The Lehigh offer to abandon the
canal does not carry with it an offer
to abandon the basin, because 1t sets
forth that after the canal is aban-
doned call the canal company will
have of its original investment of more
than 5000, 900 will be the Jersey City
BASIN. etc,