Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1914-11-28
TELLS Of CLAIMS
Of LEHIGH R. R.
TO MORRIS CANAL
Committee of lnterurban Con-
ference Discusses Project
of Abandonment.

Edgar Fl. Boles, representing the
s.ebigh Valley Railroad Company, APP
s5eared before the Morris canal COM
tnittee of the conference on inter
ytrbap DEVELOPMENT of Newark and
adjacent municipalities yesterday
afternoon and told of the claims OF
4ha T,ahigh Valley railroad as to the
s-irht of possession of the Morris
canal The meeting was held at the
Offices of Chief Engineer Morris ~
ssherrerd at the City Hall
During his discourse, MIR. Boies sald
that Jersey City had no right tc
claims To certain parts in the canai
basin, and if any rights existed they
were the sole property OF the state.
The committee also heard in a gen
erstl outline the desires of the Hopat-
cong Lake section explained by Hud-
son Maxim IT was finally decided
Thai in order to make fruitful CO.
aperation possible to further enlarge
The committee by asking various in
4erests concerned in the future OF the
Morris Canal to delegate representa-
fiyes as members. 1t is the desire or
the committee to have Jersey City
represented by an official as we'll as
BY a member of the Jersey City Cham-
Der Of Commerce. The Mayor of Pat
erson will be asked TO become a MEM
Der. The committee will request the
legislative commission to delegate
Surrogate Fred j. Stickel, jr., and
The Lake Hopatcong Intermunicipal
Park Commission and the Norris
County Parkway Association Of Nor
ristown VIII be asked to join.
In the same manner that the COM
mittee heard the side of the Lehigh
Valley Railroad it is proposed to hear
other factors and to attempt TO come
70 joint conclusion from these
opinions.
Mr. Boles stated that to date the
city of Jersey City had never officially
treated with the railroad TO learn the
latter's attitude. Mr.. Boles contended
that Jersey City has not a scrap Of
documentary evidence that with the
abandonment Of the canal it has any
proprietary or other rights in the
canal basins.
In a review of the acquisition Of the
canal by the railroad MIR. Boles I'M
dertook to refute the accusation that
the road had acquired the canal to
throttle it. When the company took
over the canal he said, it did not
have one foot of rail across the State
and only after the capacity of the
canal did not suffice the demand for
carrying coal did the road acquire
right of way to the Hudson River.
The difficulty then arose to get
water frontage along the Hudson.
Mr. Boles continued, and the only
property available was what is
known as the Big Basin, just south
of the Little Basin" which forms
the mouth of the canal. To use
eolloquial expression, Mr.. Boles said,
the Jersey Central had 'hogged' all
available space except the Big
Basin -
For this property, MIR. Boles assert
ed, that company paid the State
through the Riparian Commission
S3S4,000 committed rental until 1874,
and $4,000 purchase money for the
ownership after that time. There
was no purchase right reserved for
the State. Mr.. Boles said such az
appertained to The small basin and
the canal, making 1t possible for the
State to acquire the property in 1924
by purchase.
Other Claims of Railroad.
The railroad, therefore, he declared.
could not be elected from the prop
erty, for which it has paid rental,
until the term for the reVersion was
up. This latter right was still pend
Ing, as the State disputed the right
of the Riparian Commission to sell
the property. In case the question
should be decided against the road,
the $4,000, plus compound interest
since 1889 would have to be returned
10 the railroad.
In the meantime, said Mr.. Boles,
fhe railroad in good faith had spent
some 100000 in the development of
the property, as the attack on the
Jurisdiction of the Riparian Commits
sion did not come until years after.
Mr.. Boles was asked what the atti-
1ude Of the road was on the bill as
recommended by the legislative COM
mission. On the whole, he said, the
bin was satisfactory, except that it's
provisions should be more definite.
He also expressed his opinion that
the railroad should not be asked to
maintain the canal for three more
years while commission made an
other investigation. This maintenance
would mean an additional expense of
sl50,000
The claim Of Jersey City that Il
wanted to develop its waterfront was
questioned by Mr., Boles, who showed
that valuable and easily accessible
land right in back of the basin In the
900-foot waterway was still the de-
pository for nothing but tin cans.
John L. O'Toole, who represents the
Public Service Railway Company on
the committee. was asked about any
possible plans Of the company in re-
gard to a high speed line between
Newark and Paterson along the bed
of the Morris Canal. He stated that
il was still too early to discuss the
company's plans.
That Lake Hopatcong would offer
no obstacle, provided the resorts and
the lake did not suffer In their char
acter as u summer colony, was stated
by Mr.. Maxim.
Others present at the conference Of
the committee We're: Charles F.
Kocher, chairman; DR.. Charles 2.
Eraemer e. p. Goodrich. Julius S.
Rippel and Harlan Bartholomew.
The next meeting will be held
wednesday afternoon.