Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-01-14
Peoples
RoStrum

the action of the two States (Nev
Jersey and Pennsylvania both canals
(the Lehigh canal and the Morri:
canaD can be put into operation anC
the coal traffic from the mines te
tide water. at New York, restored
This is a line of action which is
entirely practicable. for it is err
roneous to assume that the people OF
Pennsylvania are i'm league with the
coal and transportation monopolists
who have forced an exorbitant tribute
from every family in the Eastern
States. These people are as much
the victims of the monopolists as we
in New Jersey.
Quoting you again, "A memorial
to the Pennsylvania Legislature from
the New Jersey Legislature asking
for a conference and joint action, is
obviously first step to take for the
rescue of the canals from their pres
emit monopoly uses"
Certainly there should be a con-
ference and joint action between the
law-making bodies of the two States,
although I am informed that an eff
| ficient and unrestricted Morris canal
would be sufficient inducement in
persuading the Lehigh canal officials
to repair the Easton outlet canal
through which theboats of this canal
enter the Delaware river and proceed
to the Jersey shore. They should
convey their cargoes from the mines
| to Newark without breaking bulk.
There is no unsurmountable obstacle
to this. Nothing but railroad greed
stand in the way.
Jersey City should certainly insist
on the retention of the canal through
Hudson county; but that is the affair
of the coal consumers in that county.
The canal can terminate at the Pas
sale river at Belleville and create a
great terminal point. as it does now
in Jersey City. Every man who is
affected by transportation conditions
in Essex and Hudson should consti-
tute himself a committee of one to
urge State ownership of the Morris
canal for. Notwithstanding all that
has been said, the Legislature of New
Jersey is responsive to the expressed
will of the people.
maintained Morris canal should I'M
derstaItd that while the canals
lessee, the Lehigh Valley railroad, ap-
pears willing to turn over the canal
to the State such action is contingent
on the railroad retaining as absolute
owner the canal terminals at Jersey
City and Phillipsburg. The accept
ance of these and other conditions
would insure the cessation of traffic
on the canal and leave no possibility
of revival, for the railroad would
have both ends. We cannot accept
these conditions and assert that the
policy of the lessee throughout has
been and is deceptive and insincere.
Its aim, primarily and finally, is to
destroy a rate-making rival in trans
portation of bulky and heavy commo-
dities. The triumph of such aims
would be especially injurious to Es-
sex and Hudson counties.
Therefore, the proposition is reduced
to this point: How can the State
release the grip of the railroad on
the canal with a view to maintain
ing it as a modern commercial water
way? There are two methods of
procedure.
First-SeiZe the entire canal prop
erty, put it in efficient condition, and
notify the Lehigh canal officials. This
would bring about the necessary re-
pairs to the outlet canal at Easton,
Pa. eve learn that 1,500 boats navi-
gated the Norris canal in 1871, when
Newark had 10000 people. Our city
now has 100000 people, and Hudson
county's population has increased
proportionately). The railroad would
reply that its property cannot be
taken without due process of law; but
the Morris canal is not wholly the
property of the lessee or of the
original canal company. The State.
in permitting the construction of this
canal, reserved to itself certain
rights. and these rights cannot be
abrogated without the consent of the
people, as expressed at the polls
under the constitution of 1874. BY
reason of the States ratio of owner
ship in the canal and the interests
that are adversely affected by the
lessee's restriction of navigation and
the inefficient and decayed state of
the canal property, full Justification
exists for the State, by direct act of
the Legislature, giving due notice of
intention, and on a date to be de-
ternined april Is, 1913. would be a
good tine) take over the canal and
its privileges and in due time pay for
the same on the basis of value stated
in the report of 1911, signed by repre-
sentatives of the State and of the
railroad company. 1t should be noted
that in speaking of the report of 1911
refer to the agreed value of the
canal property. and not to the terms.
Second-In 1923 the canals charter
authorizes the State to take over the
canal property upon payment of
fair price for same. But why wait
for 1923, when the lessee says it wants
to abandon navigation (not the prop
erty) now? Adjustment of terms is
necessary, and those terms must be
such as provide for a navigable,
efficient waterway. The coal and
transportation monopolists would
rally to the support of the lessee in
opposing rehabilitated Morris
canal; but that has been apparent
for years. The State, through its
lawmakers, must antagonize the
monopolists, and the Legislature of
1918 has ample power to strike an
effective blow by opening the fight
and Selling the Morris canal. And,
Mr.. Editor, unless | am greatly mis-
taken. the Legislature has sufficient
backbone and State pride to do that
very thing.
1t is a far cry back to 1871; but
will raise the question "Did the Legis-
lature which authorized the perpetual
lease of the Morris canal have the