The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-06-19
JERSEY IN NEW FIGHT
FOR HUDSON BRIDGE
Movement Started to Petition
Fielder to Name Another
Commission.
TUNNEL ALSO DISCUSSED
Suggested That Five Counties
Most Benefited Share Cost
With New York.

NEWARK, N. j.. June 1S.--Ary,p,.
on the advantages TO be derived h, .,,,
Meeting New York and New .rer,s, ,,.,.
either bridge or tunnel were pre.c,,ca ~,
the Board of Freehoiders to-day f,r .,.
purpose Of having Essex county ne,,,,o,
Gov. Fielder to appoint a new connie
sion TO act on the question with a sim.
liar body in New York. Action wa, A.
ferred until tho next meeting OF the boar,
to give the members opportunity carr.
fully to consider the question
The commission In New Jersey w,s an.
pointed by the Legislature to rsnort a.,
the feasibility Of tho proposition ana ,hs
work Is now considered at an end 7,
Is suggested that II a new con,rni.,,o, :,
appointed the expense OF either a er,d..
or tunnel be shared by Essex. Hudson
Bergen. Pnsssic and Union COUNTIES MIR
New York.
Martin SAKE. counsel TO che New Yo-s
commission. ana ex-state Senator !. A
C. johnson. counsel 10 the present Nsv
Jersey commission, addressed tho boaro
to-day. Other speakers ware Henry %.
Hodge. engineer employed to look in,o
the feasibility Of the bridge plan; Z n
Davies. engineer on tho tunnel proood-
ton; De Witt Van Busleirl. Q rnernbey
Of the New Jersey commission, and w
Hayward Noyes.. chairman OF the Nov
Jersey commission.
Mr.. johnson said that tho petitiouius
OF tho Governor did not mean n<osp.
sarily that Essex county was committed
to any project involving expense to X
He said that II either the bridge or IN.
tunnels were paid for according TO the
county plan Essex county would nay less
than under the State plan. a. has been
proposed. lie declared that under IN.
county plan the apportionment Of cost
would be according to the benent gained.
while under the State payment plan thu
cost must be In accordance with the rata.
biss. He pointed out that the i've ooun.
ties have about two-thirds OF the rasables
of tho whole State.
In his discussion Mr.. SAKE said thai
New York was ready to consider further
both the bridge and tunnel projects bu:
that II could do nothing II the new com.
mission 10 not appointed.
Mr.. Hodge explained that as an e..
cheering problem the bridge project was
easy. Borings In the river Mt Fifty.
seventh street, New York, where It ia
proposed to locate the span. he said have
shown geological conditions that permit
Of proper foundations. He estimated tho
total cost at about s52,000.oo0.
Mr.. Davies pointed out advantages u
the proposed location OF tho tunnel from
Canal street, New York. to Twelfth street
Jersey City, By the underground route
He gave no estimate OF the cost OF the
tunnel. which has been placed at sli.-
900, 900.
Present conditions OF the ferries. which
he said were likely to get worse were
discussed by Mr.. Van Buskrk. He said
that IL New Jersey did not go into either
the tunnel or bridge proposition IL would
lose the chance of its life. He declared
that New York wanted the proposition.
and IL New Jersey is dilatory the oppor.
tunity will be lost.
Mr. Noyes said that three years after
the construction OF the Brooklyn Bridgv
Brooklyn gained enough in increased
ratables to pay its share of the cost
which was 100000.
Freebooter Malta contended that a
bridge or tunnel would mean a loss Of
trade to New Jersey, because the easier
the residents of this State can get TO New
York the more they will go there and
spend their money.