Newark evening star and Newark advertiser., 1915-11-17
'WESCOTT OPENS
STATE SUIT FOR
BASIN OF CANAL
The Attorney-Oeneral Cues
tions Validity of Railroads
Deed to Larger Area.

from a Stan Correspondent.
TRENTON, Nov. l7.--That the deed
to the Lehigh Valley Railroad Com
pany for the Big Basin in Jersey city
at the mouth of the rforris canal was
obtained BY Misrepresentation and
snould be set aside was the argument
presented by Acknowledgement John
w. Wescott before the Court of Err
rors and Appeals today in the ap-
peal of the railroad from the decision
OF the Court Of Chancery In favor of
the States contention.
After many delays the appeal of
the Lehigh Valley was brought on for
argument in the States highest court.
The legislature in 1907 instructed the
then attorneys general, Robert H. Nc
Carter, to proceed with the suit
against the railroad TO determine
ownership of the Big Basin.
Expect Decision In February.
IT is expected that after conclusion
Of argument by the attorneys general
and Gilbert Collins, for the railroad.
that the case will go to the conference
OF the judges and be ready for de-
cision in February. while the 1916
ASbiSldLuFe ~ IN session,
The argument of the State is that
Under the terms of the charter of the
Morris Canal and Banking Company
that company had on.y seasehold
right, and that the property will
eventually revert to the State in 1924
after an equitable appraisal of its
value. Failure to agree upon a price
In 1924 will result, in the State taking
~ fk4F
The brief was submitted by the at
torney-general and former Supreme
Court Justice Bennett Van Syckel,
special counsel for the State.
The only issue in this case is
whether the deed to the Lehigh
Valley Railroad Company, dated
July 12, 1889, for the Basin of 1857
is a valid conveyance. and il not.
upon what terms it may be set aside
by the decree of this court" said the
attorney generals brief.
We admit that the grant of the
said basin to the Morris Canal Com
pany, approved March IA, 1867, is a
valid grant, but subject by the third
section of that grant to be vacated
at the option of the State in 1924
by paying to the Canal Company its
fair value, and If the State does not
exercise such option in 1926, the
basin shall revert to the State in
1874. without any payment therefor
by the State.
Tenants Rights Not Sustained.
Tho right of the Morris Canal to
retain and hold the said basin until
the expiration. of the lease is not
now questioned, and cannot be ques-
toned under the information in this
case.
Nor is the right OF the Morris
Canal to lease the canal to the
Lehigh Valley Railroad Company
for such term as it possessed under
its charter an issue in this case, and
is not denied.
while there is no attempt on the
part of tho State, and no power
under this information to interfere
with the. Lehigh Valley Railroad
Company in its possession of the
basin as against the Canal Company,
we deny, that as against the State.
the Lehigh Valley was, in 1889, or
at any other time, the representa-
live, or assign of the Canal Company
within the meaning of the fourth
section of the riparian act of 1859.
This case must therefore be con-
sideredz as il the Lehigh Valley shall
continue in possession of the said
basin until the expiration of its lease
from the canal company"
Argument for tho Railroad.
Argument In behalf of the Lehigh
Valley was made this afternoon by
former Judge Collins. The act of 1907
for an inquiry into the ownership OF
the Big Basin, Mr.. Collins said, was
unconstitutional, because 1t attempted
to deprive the railroad of its prop
erty. The decree of vice-C Chancellor
Stevens against the company was de-
cIared by Mr.. Collins to be an error,
because the railroad was not allowed
anv consideration for improvement
made to the canal.
IL any decree was proper, Mr.. Col
Inns said. 1t would include an allow
ance for improvements the railroad
has made.