Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1912-03-11
CANAL CHARTER
FORFEITED, SAID
LATE ATTORNEY
Cortlandt Parker Said Lehigh
Valleys Acts Deprived Cor
poration of Rights.

makers at Trenton. Although many
arguments against abandonment have
been brought out at the hearings or
the bill, perhaps the strongest evel
made was that by the late Cortlandt
Parker, given out at his office in this
city In 1906.
Mr.. Parker described the organiza.
ton of the canal enterprise. The State
selected four men each from a county
to procure subscriptions for a million
dollars. The plan was to make the
canal free to all who should pay tolls
the only source CT income, and the
charter provided that the tolls should
never exceed 8 cents per ton per mile
Mr.. Parker took UP the point of the
obligation of contracts. : The Morris
Canal could not legally be abandoned,
he said. The canal charter created a
public benefit in the nature of what In
law is called a charity, the preserva-
ton of which a court of equity will
decree He quoted from decisions In
a famous case In New Hampshire in
which two acts of the Legislature were
declared void by the United States SUI
preme Court. The principle of the case
was similar to that of the Morris Ca
nal. The legislative acts altered an
old charter. 1t was held by the court
that 1.-THE donations of private benefac-
tors should be perpetually devoted to
their original purposes, without any in
reference on its own part, and should
be forever administered by the trustees
of the corporation. unless its corporate
franchises should be taken away by
due process of law" Mr.. Parker con-
tinued and said:
81 take pains, perhaps unnec-
essary, to show that this Norris Canal
charter bound the State and that the
Morris company bound itself to o
tinue this amazing artificial navigation
as a canal and a water highway-a
river stretching 100 miles between riv-
ers 600 miles of water front created).
On its banks money has been spent by
citizens. With what equity can the
State NEEDLE with improvements that
this (canal charter) contract has in
duced?"
"If I am right" said Mr.. Parker.
land should this canal be abandoned
by the vote of this Legislature. and
the question of the lawfulness of the
act came before the Supreme Court of
the Union for decision, the case of
abandonment would be declared void
But suppose l am wrong.
Regulation of navigable waters be-
longs to the national government. So
many of our actually navigable waters
are beyond the tide that all waters
actually navigable and navigated are
under Federal jurisdiction. And such
of them as pas across States, from
n State to another are instruments
of internal ommerce.
1.-THE canal is, and has been for years,
entirely out of repair. Its ancient nav
igation for long time has departed,
though created for transportation from
the Delaware to the Hudson; and
profitable transportation, or other
transportation of boats owned by pri-
vate citizens, that is given up. Through
whose fault? Whose could 1t be except
the Lehigh Valley Railroad Com
pany's? The manager in the nam of
the Morris Canal and Banking Com
pany, really claiming to be owner-
who to conceal this intended guilt,
bargained In the contract thai they
could use always the name of the Nor
ris Canal and Banking Company in
their work. This is a fact corrobora-
ting the charge that they intended
from the beginning what they have
done. Yet all the while both these
companies were under solemn contract
to preserve this artificial river.
rs it not %sickening to know that
such a river, fed by never-drying
fountains, in mountain lakes and MAX
ing all rivers north in New Jersey trib-
utary to it, could be neglected and
suffered to perish, until it became a
ditch, parent of noisome exhalations;
a pond or succession of ponds walled
in. to become stagnant, fetid and pro-
Queer of disease and death to those to
whom, If, as dreamed of as in ancient
mythology as to all streams, this river
had its special gods to whom it longed
to give life and happiness?
Now, with such an indictment as
this of these two corporations, the
question, sought to be answered by
this bill, is: What Is to be done? I
know of no better reply than one re-
peated by me more thar once-the
course for a government to follow in
such a case as this: If parties have
done mischief, let them repair it. If
they have broken contracts, let them
perform them. If they refuse, make
them obey. Never think of settling
with them otherwise. and so arrange
that the evils they have done may
never be repeated.
But has the State the legal power?
There are two corporations guilty Ia
this matter: One the Morris Canal
and Banking Company, a citizen of
New Jersey, its creature, fully subject
to her laws; subject to no others, save
those established on appeal to the gov
m at Washington. The other
corporation is not a citizen of New
Jersey, but of Pennsylvania. incorpo-
rated there to make and operate GER
tain railroads in that State, having no
right to operate railroads In this State.
But not having any right to operate
a canal in Pennsylvania, 1t cannot
have, and does not ave any right to
operate one in New Jersey"
Mr.. Parker here discussed the bill he
advocated. It's first section directed
the encouragement to institute pro-
ceedings against the canal company,
seeking a forfeiture of its franchises,
for the non-use and misuse confessed,
or to compel it forthwith to enter upon
the repair of said canal, that 1t may
be in the condition in which 1t was
when the lease was made to the Lee
high. The second section directed that
the same officer shall procure the in
%stitution of criminal D~roceedinpa