USA > New Jersey > Hudson County > Paper read before the historical society of Hudson County. 1908 > Part 13
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31
7. That your petitioners desire your honorable Commission to fix such reasonable and just price as may be deemed proper for said marsh island upon payment of which by your petitioners a clear and defeasible title thereto may be granted them;
8. That your petitioners desire your honorable Commission to fix a time and place, when and where they may appear and be heard regarding this petition for purchase; and such other privileges as your honorable Commission may deem fitting;
And your petitioners will ever pray, etc."
It just happened that at the time the newspaper men were de- voting some attention to this department of the State. Anyone
9
who has had experience with the young gentlemen who write up the daily news knows what an energetic and enterprising lot of young men they are: how cleverly, out of little, they can build an ornamental and attractive structure.
The newspaper men got hold of this unique case, and in the papers appeared such headlines as these :
"Baptist Ministers Seize a New Jersey Island."
"They Noticed it with { Favor and so They Simply Swiped it."
"Will Trust in God and Senator Hand," &c,
and wrote the matter up in the following facetious way, which cleverly contained very much of truth :
"Each one of the four Riparian Commissioners of this State at their meeting this morning sat bolt upright in his chair and gasped in utter astonishment as two Philadelphia Baptist ministers, with much washing of hands with invisible soap, and unctuous tones, gently preferred the modest request that the board should give them the title to an island in Cape May County which the reverened gentlemen had, as they felicitously termed it, "noticed with favor" and quietly pre-empted it, with- out so much as by-your-leave-gentlemen-of-the-State-of-New Jersey.
""""Eh?' said the Chairman.
" 'What?' ejaculated the Board's Counsel, horrified.
"""Bless me!' exclaimed another Commissioner.
" 'Dangerous precedent,' observed the Secretary, 'for in- stance, if some one should notice with favor my house, what then?'
"To make matters all the more complicated behind the ministers sat Senator Robert E. Hand of Cape May County, who had before the Board an application for the very identical island, too. Genial Bob, quietly enjoying a "chaw", listened blandly to the ministers' arguments and regarded the entire proceedings as a huge joke. His application was in first, and since truth must be told, Bob, to use a well-known metaphor, had neatly euchred the ministers. Bit by bit the Commissioners were put in possession of the facts of a very singular case, the beginning of which is best told in the ministers' own refreshing language, as set forth above.
"So like the Israelites of old, these Philadelphia ministerial pioneers found a promised land, and they rushed back to their kith and kin in far away sleepy Philadelphia and conveyed to them the glad tidings. They engaged the services of Robert E. Hand, a guileless dock builder, oyster planter, general con- tractor and everything else in Cape May, to set the pilings for the cottages. Bob was only too delighted, and very soon there was a small colony of the elect of Philadelphia on stilts But Bob, like Dickens' famous character, Joey B, 'was sly, devilish
10
sly,' and when he found that the worthy colonists had no title to their land, he resolved to put that right by asking one in his own name, doubtlessly for the purpose afterwards of making the ministers a present of it.
"While this was being done, the Secretary had everything not screwed down in the offices, which might be 'noticed with favor' removed to an inner room." (This was the facetia of the newspapers).
The fact in the case was that the East Jersey Proprietors had made a grant to one of the parties, although, as stated in the petition, "The Marsh Island is wholly covered by from two to three feet of salt water at every ordinary tide." The con- clusion of this matter was that the grant by the Proprietors was ignored by the State and these amiable ministers, who were most admirable gentlemen, were confirmed by the State in their title to the little Venice they had "'noticed with favor."
STATE BOUNDARY LINE.
Reference was made to a survey or grant by the Proprie- tors in 1746 of Bedloe's Island, in Hudson County, to Kennedy. Apprehending it may be questioned by some that Bedloe's Island was and is in Hudson County, a brief history of the determination and location of the boundary line between New Jersey and New York will be of interest:
The exact definition of the boundary line between New York and New Jersey seems not to have interested the earlier inhabitants of these two States, and so apparently unimportant an incident or industry as that of gathering oysters and other shell fish from the waters of Raritan bay is responsible for the determination and finally the actual location of this boundary line.
The value of lands under water in Raritan Bay was rec- ognized early in the last century. Raritan Bay is a shallow, land-locked body of water, subject to the ebb and flow of ocean tides and fed by many fresh water streams, possessing every requisite necessasy for the successful and profitable cultivation of shell fish.
Beds of natural growth, where oysters and clams grew in great abundance, were found by the early settlers, and for a long time these proved sufficient to supply the wants of the scanty population. The rapid growth of population and the apparent danger of depletion from over fishing soon rendered
II
artificial propagation necessary, and about the year 1810, the first oysters were planted and cultivated in Raritan Bay.
At first all the land under water in Raritan Bay was con- sidered as common to the residents of both States, and no at- tempt was made to divide them according to State lines, and not until the industry began to grow in importance, and the land consequently to increase in value, did local jealousies and disputes arise between the citizens of New York and New Jersey.
These disputes soon grew to be of a serious nature, and sometimes ended in bloodshed . . Especially was this so after the Legislature of each State had made it a misdemeanor for citizens to take or cultivate oysters in the waters of the other State, and in 1834 a treaty or compact was entered into by the two States in which it was agreed that "the boundary line be- tween the States of New York and New Jersey shall be the middle of the Hudson River, of the Bay of New York, of the water between Staten Island and New Jersey and of Raritan Bay to the main sea." This agreement was entered into on September 16th, 1833, and confirmed by the Legislature of New York, February 5th, 1834, by the Legislature of New Jersey, February 26th, 1834, and approved by the Congress of the United States, June 28th, 1834. This, though vague, was sufficiently definite for a long time, but the rapidly increasing number of planters and the great demand for oyster lands soon led to the occupation of the lands in the most valuable part of the bay. The indefinite nature of the description of the bound- ary line given in the agreement of 1834, became a source of constant dispute, and in 1886, pursuant to a joint resolution of the Legislature, Governor Green appointed Robert C. Bacot, A, B. Stoney and George H. Cook a commission on the part of New Jersey to cooperate with a similar Commission on the part of the State of New York to locate and mark out in Rari- tan Bay the line of 1834. The Commission concluded its work and made its report to the Governor on December 20th, 1887.
The work of this commission was so satisfactory that it was continued to definitely locate and mark out the boundary between the States in Staten Island Sound, Kill von Kull, New York Bay, and the Hudson River. It was in the latter part of this commission work that the Honorable Robert C. Bacot, who was chairman of the Commission on the part of New Jer-
12
sey, as well as the Engineer of the Riparian Commission, clung so tenaciously and successfully to the contention that the treaty of 1834 fixed the middie of the channel of New York Bay, and not the middle of the area of the waters of the bay, as the boundary line, as contended for by the New York State Com- missioners. This resulted in giving to the State of New Jersey, not only a greater area of land under water, but in fixing the boundary line in the centre of the deep water channel, and placing Ellis and Bedloe's Islands, as well as Oyster and Rob- bins Reef within the State of New Jersey, and in Hudson County.
A curious and amusing incident occurred off the shores of Greenville about the year 1875 :
The State of New Jersey had made a grant of lands under water in New York Bay, opposite the shores of Greenville, the grant extending some three thousand feet into the waters of the bay. The grantees had proceeded to bulkhead the outer end of this tract and to fill it in with refuse from the city of New York. This, in time, came to be a great nuisance, as the malodors arising from the effect of the summer sun were wafted by the prevailing southeasterly breezes of summer to the then bucolic residents of the sylvan shores of Greenville. They protested, but the protests were not loud enough to reach over the intervening half a mile of water from their shores to the offending filling. And so the aid of the law was invoked for relief, and the late Charles H. Winfield, that eloquent prac- titioner of the law, was employed to secure, through the courts, relief for our citizens.
In the trial of the case the defense was set up by the of- fending parties, under that ancient and exploded theory that the city of New York controlled the waters of the Bay of New York to the New Jersey shore, and disregarding also the fact that they had accepted the title and paid the State of New Jersey for the lands in question, that the Greenvillians were not entitled to any relief, as the offense they complained of was within the jurisdiction of New York and not of New Jersey.
Mr. Winfield, resourceful in repartee, as well as in law, replied to the court, with convincing effect, that leaving out the question whether the locus of the filling was in New York or New Jersey, there was no question that the odors were in
I3
New Jersey, and that they were indicting the odors and de- manded relief. The court took that view of it and afforded the relief asked for.
The examination and care of the monuments marking the boundary line of the State, is one of the many duties devolving upon the Riparian Commission of the State. By act of April 4th, 1891 (P. L. 1891, p. 324), the Riparian Commission is authorized and directed to cause an examination of the monu- ments and to report to the Legislature their condition, and to make necessary repairs, &c.
STATE CONTROL OF ITS RIPARIAN LANDS.
No particular supervision or control seems to have been exercised by the State over its lands under water until 1851, when the Legislature passed what is known as the Wharf Act, to which I shall refer later, entitled "An Act to authorize the owners of lands upon tide waters to build wharves in front of the same." (P. L. 1851, p. 335.)
It appears, however, that since the beginning of the nine- teenth century, the Legislature of the State of New Jersey has, from time to time, made grants, the more important of which were located under the waters of the Hudson River and New York Bay.
In 1802, a conditional grant of two acres was made to Nathaniel Budd, which was a small part of the grant by the Proprietors to Elisha Boudinot in 1803. (This grant by the Proprietors covered about fifty-three and one-half acres of land under water, and lay between Fourth and Twelfth Streets in Jersey City, Pavonia Avenue running about through the centre of it. )
In 1804, a grant was made to the Associates of the Jersey Company, covering practically, the land under water in front of the southern part of old Jersey City. A map, in a good state of preservation, is still in existence, showing the Hudson River water front from Harsimus or First Street, south to South Street or the Morris Canal basin. It is a map advertising the sale of this property, and has an interesting engraving of the water front of Jersey City, showing the old Pennsylvania station and ferry slips, the Cunard docks, with the single smoke stack, side wheel steamers, partly square rigged, as sail- ing vessels, and also, approaching the slip, an old-fashioned
14
walking beam ferry boat, with the name "D. S. Gregory" on the paddle box.
In the background appears the roof and spire of the old Washington Street Presbyterian Church, of which, within the memory of many still living, Dr. Imbrie was the pastor.
This church enjoyed the unique distinction of having been transported, piece meal, from where it originally stood, on Wall Street, New York City, across the river, and re-erected, in substantially its original form. It stood on the east side of Washington Street, adjoining the park on its southerly side, and nearly opposite the Gregory homestead. One of the Greg- ory boys was the organist in the church, and the writer of this paper, when a young man, sang in the choir. It was out of no disrespect to the amiable and able pastor, Dr. Imbrie, that at the beginning of the sermon, on warm summer mornings, a part of the choir would silently steal down the stairs from the organ loft and seat themselves under the peaceful shade of the trees in the park, hearing, if not listening to, the voice of the earnest old doctor, as it came through the windows, until warned by its cessation that the time had come to resume their places and part in the service.
This church was subsequently torn down and apartment houses erected on its site.
The legend on the map in question reads as follows: "DAVID SCOTT, AUCTIONEER
MAP OF VALUABLE PROPERTY IN JERSEY CITY
BELONGING TO THE ASSOCIATES OF THE JERSEY COMPANY AND OTHERS SIXTY LOTS IN BLOCKS
C TO I FRONTING ON AND EXTENDED 150 FEET EAST FROM HUDSON STREET,
WILL BE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION IN JERSEY CITY ON
WEDNESDAY THE 24th JUNE, 1857 AT 2 O'CLOCK P. M."
The side wheel, square rigged ocean steam ships shown in the engraving of 1857 are interestingly foreshadowed in the following act of the Legislature of New Jersey, passed in 1848, (P. L. 1848, p. 256), as follows:
"Relative to the pilot laws of the United States.
"1. BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey, That the passage of the act of
I5
March 2nd, 1837, by congress, by which the business of pilotage in the bays and harbours adjoining this State and the State of New York, was thrown open to citizens of this State, appointed as pilot under our laws, was an act of justice to the State of New Jersey, and loudly called for by the appalling disasters upon our coasts, which before that time continued to occur in quick succession.
"2. And be it resolved, That the results of the experience of the last ten years, the greatly diminished number of wrecks of vessels approaching our shores, the superior vigilance and care of the New Jersey pilots, the danger of a renewal of the melancholy scenes and loss of life which attended the wrecks of the Mexico and Bristol, the impolicy and injus- tice of again erecting a monopoly, encouraging criminal remissness on the part of the pilots, all combine to furnish an unanswerable argument against the repeal of the pres- ent law.
"3. And be it resolved, That the recent establishment of a line of ocean steamships from Great Britain, whose terminus is at the Port of Jersey City, furnishes an additional argu- ment against the repeal of that act.
"4. And be it resolved, That the Governor of this State be re- quested to forward a copy of the foregoing resolutions to our senators and representatives in congress."
"Approved February 11, 1848."
In 1836 the State made a grant to Nathaniel Budd of the entire fifty-three and a half acres lying on the Hudson River between Fourth and Twelfth Streets in Jersey City, practically the same tract granted by the Proprietors to Boudinot in 1803.
In 1838 the State made a grant to the Hoboken Land and Improvement Company practically covering all the land under water in front of Hoboken.
In 1848 the State made a grant to Stephen Vreeland cov- ering land under water adjacent to Caven Point.
In 1849 a grant was made to Ingham and Jenkins covering lands under water at Bergen Point.
In 1869 a grant was made to the United New Jersey Rail- road and Canal Companies, which is known as the Pennsylvania Railroad, of lands under water in front of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company's property.
After March 31st, 1869, the control and administration of the Riparian interests of the State was placed in the hands of Commissioners appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
16
THE WHARF ACT.
In 1851, the authorities of the State seem to have recog- nized the necessity of placing the supervision and control of the construction of wharves or docks in the hands of the local authorities affected by these improvements, and on March 18th, 1851, (P. L. 1851, P. 335), the Legislature passed what is known as the "Wharf Act."
This act gave the shore owner the authority to build docks or wharves in front of his lands and outlined the necessary procedure to be followed in obtaining the right to do so. It set forth that any owner of lands situated on tide waters who might desire to build a dock or wharf to extend beyond the limits of ordinary low water, should first obtain a license for that purpose from the Board of Chosen Freeholders of the county in which the lands might lie; it provided that applica- tions should be advertised in a newspaper published in the county, and, as throwing a little light on the advance we have made, provided that, in the event of a county in which no newspaper was published, that the notice might be published in the paper of an adjoining county. This notice was to be published for six weeks and was to be put up in five of the most public places in the neighborhood of the lands in ques- tion, and the notice was to specify the location and dimensions of the dock or wharf intended to be built. The freeholders, upon proof of these formalities having been complied with, were to make an examination and if, in their judgment, the improvement did not appear to be injurious to puclic naviga- tion, after giving opportunity to those opposed to be heard, granted the license sought.
This license was to specify the limits of the improvement, be recorded in the minutes of the freeholders, and recorded in the clerk's office of the county.
It was also provided that the dock in question should be built within five years of the time of issuing said license and that the rights to the same should thereafter be vested in the shore owner, and contained an interesting provision that it should not be assignable, except with, and as pertaining to the land in front of which it was constructed, and that it should pass by any sale of said lands as appurtenant to the same, thus clearly being a recognition of the inherent right in the shore owner to the uses and advantages of the waterway.
I7
It was also provided that in case of an owner situated on tide water, which was a boundary line between two counties, practically the same procedure should be gone through with by the freeholders of both counties.
There were other provisions which are more in the nature of details and not interesting in this connection.
It is of interest, however, to note that the Legislature, in 1851, defined the terms used in the act, and the eleventh sec- tion is as follows:
"And be it enacted, that the term 'shore' in this act shall be construed to mean the land between the limits of ordin- ary high and low water; the term 'shore line' to mean the edge of the water at ordinary high water; and the term 'shore owner' to mean the owner of the lands above and adjoining the shore line."
This act applied to the entire State, of course, and numer- ous docks were built under it, perhaps a greater number in Es- sex, Hudson and Union Counties than in any other riparian counties of the State.
No compensation to the State appears to have been pro- vided for in the act and what the expenses were to these shore owners in acquiring their licenses is a matter known only to the parties interested. There was much good natured gossip on this question: without doubt, the committee of the free- holders appointed to examine the locality of the dock applied for, was hospitably treated by the applicant. There is no reason to doubt that the applicant provided glasses through which a view, favorable to his application, might be obtained by the freeholders, and, as was the custom in those days of few hotels and less expeditious means of travel, the comfort of the visiting freeholders was looked after as a matter of kindly hospitality, if nothing else.
A former Governor of this State, upon applying, as coun- sel, for the full right of the State to land on which existed a dock built under one of these freeholders' licenses, was asked by the State representatives if he knew what the license the owner had obtained from the freeholder had cost him. The ex-Governor, who was known for his genial nature, smiled in a reminiscent way, shaking his head, and said he could not tell.
In 1869, the supplement to the act of 1864, creating the Riparian Commission, was passed, and the Wharf Act of 1851 was repealed so far as it applied to the waters of the Hudson
18
River, New York Bay and Kill von Kull (to Enyard's Dock on the Kill von Kull); Enyard's Dock being about at the foot of Ingham Avenue in Bayonne.
Attempts were made thereafter to continue the work of construction under freeholders' licenses, but the State objected and commenced suit to prevent this being done and was suc- cessful in its endeavors.
The freeholders continued to have authorthy to grant licenses in the rest of the riparian counties of the State until July Ist, 1891 ; but on March 20th, 1891, an act was passed repealing the Wharf Act as to the entire State; provision being made in such repeal that the freeholders might continue to exercise their authority under the act of 1851 until July Ist, 1891, and the further condition that any reclamation authorized under such licenses should be completed before January Ist, 1892. So that, notice being served on the shore owners by the act of March 20th, 1891, that the Wharf Act was to go out of lise on July Ist, 1891, a great rush was made in the intervening three months, particularly in Hudson, Union and Middlesex Counties, to secure these licenses, and there being but six months between July Ist, 1891 and January Ist, 1892, within which to complete any structures authorized, expedients were resorted to in an attempt to comply with the provisions of the Wharf Act of 1851, and the holders of these licenses hastened to make reclamation of the lands under water so as to come within the provisions of the act. These improvements con- sisted, in many instances, and in most instances, of simply placing piles or monuments at intervals along the land covered by their respective licenses. In many instances these piles were strung along, covering spaces of from one hundred to three thousand feet. In some instances some form of construc- tion was attempted, such as piles connected by a string piece ; in others a double row of piling had been driven, capped and planked.
Neither this form of construction, nor the method of ob- taining the licenses, conformed with the requirements ofthe act of 1851, and a case was brought to issue in 1894 to test the questions involved.
A land owner, in 1891, had secured one of these licenses from the freeholders and had driven a line of piling as above described, and then sold the land with this license and this
19
construction attached. The purchaser then proceeded to build a substantial and usable dock under color of title by this license and reclamation. The State thereupon, through the Attorney General, filed an information to compel the removal of the dock erected by the owner, as an encroachment upon lands of the State. After a careful presentation of the case on the part of the State and of the land owner, the court decreed that the land in question was located on lands of the State, without the authority of the State, and was therefore decreed to be a pur- presture upon the lands of the State and that the land owner should cause the removal of the same; also that the land owner should pay the costs of suit. This case is that of The State, Attorney General, Informant, vs. The American Lucol Company.
This finally disposed of the question, both of the right of the freeholders to grant licenses and the character of the im- provments to be made under the same, and although the right to the use and continuance of a specific dock, properly built under freeholders' license is not questioned, it is not the title of the State, and when conveyance of shore front property is now made the full title of the State is sought.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.