USA > New Jersey > Hudson County > Paper read before the historical society of Hudson County. 1908 > Part 16
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
40
wit: The strip of land east of Hudson Street, the Cunard im- provement for the accommodation of that line of steamers; the New Jersey Railroad and Hudson River Railroad Depots; the Morris Canal Wharf. Some of the land reclaimed is now owned by private individuals; that is to say, some lots on Hud- son Street, and some on Montgomery Street, and other parts of the City, on which dwelling houses, hotels, stores, manufac- tories, foundries, &c., have been erected. Forty-eight lots have been given for church, school, market and public grounds. The manner in which this land has been reclaimed has been mostly by building bulk-heads, filling them up with broken rock, stone, and by surplus earth from the streets and rubbish from the City of New York. Recently the mud outside of the bulk-head has been applied to the filling up inside by a dredging ma- chine; this, though expensive, is in a measure compensated by the greater depth of water obtained."
J. D. Miller, Esquire, made a general reply to the thir. teenth question only : Mr. Miller states that:
"He is the owner in right of his wife of about two hundred feet of shore in township of Van Vorst, in the County of Hud- son, extending along and fronting on Harsimus Bay or Hudson River. It is an ancient shore against which the tides always. have and still do flow. It has been held and enjoyed by the former owners as a shore, for more than two hundred years. The land under water in front of this shore has been used and enjoyed from time to time, by the former owners, to some extent for an oyster fishery."
Mr. Miller expresses the opinion that he is entitled to the right of enjoying and improving all the lands under water in front of said shore, subject only to the adjudicated and acknowl- edged right of the State of New Jersey, a very wise and proper answer, and one that was very much of the same pur- port, but sixteen years earlier, than the opinion of Chancellor Zabriskie.
Some of the categorical answers will cause a smile as we look at the present development of the water front of Jersey City.
In the year 1849, the Legislature passed an act to compen- sate these Commissioners, as follows:
(P. L. 1849, p. 336).
"To compensate the Commissioners, therein named :
"Be it resolved by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey, that the Treasurer of this State be anthorized and directed to pay to the Commissioners appointed by resolution of twenty-third of February, eighteen hundred and
41
forty-eight, to investigate and report as to the extent and value of the lands under water owned by the State, within the limits of the County of Hudson, as follows:
"To William H. Leupp, chairman of the said Commission- ers, for per diem, mileage and drawing report, two hundred dollars.
"To Martin J. Ryerson, one of said Commissioners, for per diem, mileage, and services, one hundred and fifty dollars.
"To George F. Fort, one of said Commissioners, for per diem, mileage, and services, one hundred and fifty dollars.
"To Andrew Clerk, for preparing map for the State, by order of said Commissioners, seventy-five dollars.
Approved March 2, 1849."
The Andrew Clerk above mentioned being the partner of Robert C. Bacot, Engineer.
New Jersey seems to have kept its eyes jealously on New York, for on March 14th, 1855, the Legislature passed a Joint Resolution, (P. L. 1855, p. 800) as follows:
"In relation to encroachments made in the harbor of New York.
"WHEREAS, it is alleged that, by certain erections made and contemplated in the East and Hudson Rivers, under and by authority of the State of New York, the usefulness of the Brooklyn Navy Yard is impaired, if not endangered, and the channels of the East River, and the Hudson River much inno- vated upon and narrowed to the injury of the main entrance channel of the harbor of New York and to the injury of the Jersey Shore, and also to the navigation of the Passaic River, leading to Newark, the largest port of entry in this State; and whereas, also, counter encroachments upon the part of New Jersey would greatly injure the navigation of the Hudson, and impair the usefulness and capacity of the harbor of New York ; and whereas, also, the establishment of a water line, outside of which no erections should be made, would seem to be necessary to arrest similar innovations in future-therefore,
"I. Be it resolved by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey, that the Legislature of the State of New York be requested, so far as the same may be within its power, to cancel and repeal all grants to build and erect wharves, piers, bulkheads and docks, in the immediate neigh- borhood of the Brooklyn Navy Yard, the erection whereof, would injure and impair the usefulness thereof, and to remove the more glaring erections in the East River, to the injury of the commerce and harbor of New York, and also to the injury of New Jersey.
"2. And be it resolved, that the Legislature of the State of New York be requested, in such manner and by such means
42
as it may think best, to survey, lay out, and establish in the riv- ers and harbor of New York an exterior water line, beyond which no erections shall hereafter be made to the injury of the com- merce of New York, or to, either directly or indirectly, injure the State of New Jersey.
"3. And be it resolved, that the Governor of this State be requested to forward an attested copy of the above resolu- tions to His Excellency the Governor of the State of New York, to be laid before the Legislature of said State.
"Approved March 14, 1855."
We can hardly think the concern of our early legislators for the Brooklyn Navy Yard was wholly unselfish, for this was followed up by what must have seemed to the citizens of the cities of New York and Brooklyn, an impertinent, if pertinent, report to the Legislature of our State, as follows:
REPORT.
"The Joint Committee of the two Houses appointed in conformity with a communication from His Excellency Gov- ernor Price, communicating an invitation to meet the Governor and the Committee of Commerce of the Legislature of New York for the purpose of viewing and considering the encroach- ments upon the bay and harbor of New York,
REPORT
"That on the thirtieth day of January last, your commit- tee, accompanied by His Excellency Governor Price, and E. L. Viele, Esq., the engineer of our State Geological Survey, pro- ceeded to New York, and at the time appointed inet his Excel- lency Governor Clark, of the State of New York, the Commit- tee of Commerce of said State, the State Engineer, with other gentlemen occupying important offices under the government of that State.
"That your committee, in connection with the above-men- tioned authorities of the State of New York, the Governors of New Jersey and Connecticut, accompanied also by officers of the Government in charge of the Navy Yard, with other per- sons representing the commercial interests of New York, pro- ceeded to examine certain encroachments made, and in progress, and contemplated upon the Brooklyn side of the East river.
"Your committee upon the first view of the matter regard- ed such encroachments as matters with which New Jersey had no interest, and should not express any opinion; but upon re- fecting they came to the conclusion that such encroachments were prejudicial to her; inasmuch as they jeopardized the in- terests which New Jersey has, in common with every other State of the Union, in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and the im- mense government expenditures at that point.
43
The report then goes on to state the effect of these en- croachments at the Navy Yard upon the Sandy Hook Channel, affecting the interests of New Jersey, through her water front on the Hudson River and New York Bay, and stating the ex- tent of the encroachments on the East River, the effect on its channels, and, calling attention to the injury done, report their visit to Jersey City as follows :
"The committee also visited Jersey City for the purpose of examining, if any, and what encroachments had been made there, and it was a matter of just pride to your committee that, comparatively speaking, no encroachments had been made up- on the Jersey side, yet your committee think that the wharves and piers lately erected by the New Jersey Railroad Company are extended farther than well comports with the interests of New Jersey, in this important matter, of keeping unimpaired the harbor of New York.
"By these two docks some encroachment, in the opinion of your committee, has been made on the channel of the Hud- son River, narrowing and deepening the river at this point. The same authority which claims the legal right, and which authorized these extensions, could, had they seen fit, have ex- tended them by the same claim of power, some thousand feet further into the river, producing the same deplorable results now existing in the East River, between New York and Brooklyn. Your committee are informed that the right by which these innovations are made, or claimed to be made, are claimed un- der the charter to the Jersey Associates, giving them power to improve their lands under water. It would seem that a power of this kind to impair the great interests of New Jersey in the harbor of New York should be found in a strict construction of explicit legislation, and if the rights by which these encroach- ments are made are restrainable they should, if possible, be restrained by timely legislation for the public good."
The committee then goes on to call attention to the neces- sity for the full flow of the tide through the Hudson and East Rivers, the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers, in order to keep unimpaired the Sandy Hook Channel, and concludes its report by saying:
"Inasmuch as the State of New York has been the cause of this triple injury to New Jersey, your committee are of the opinion that the Legislature of the State of New Jersey should, by resolution, express her dissatisfaction thereat, and request, in a friendly way, the State of New York to repeal all fraudu- lent grants improperly obtained from the State to the injury of the Navy Yard or the harbor, and by purchase, or otherwise,
44
remove other innovations upon the East River that now exist, to the injury of New York and New Jersey."
Two joint resolutions were prepared in accordance with the above report, calling attention to the situation as set forth in the report, and providing for the appointment of commis- sioners to advise as to the proper control of the development of these water front lands.
What the feelings of these ancient legislators would be if they could view the changes that have taken place in our shore front since their time, is hard to conjecture. They "viewed with just pride (in 1855)-" that comparatively speaking, no encroachments" (as they called the development of our water front) "had been made upon the Jersey side, except the New Jersey Railroad Pier and Cunard Dock", and they "regarded with concern the power given the Jersey Associates and others to improve their lands under water, and thought they should be restrained for the public good."
How fortunate for us, as a county, their fears and fore- bodings were not regarded seriously; or we might still have Harsimus Cove as an oyster ground, and the shore of the Hud- son River about the middle of Hudson Street. It might, how- ever, be some consolation to them to know that the "South Cove Grant" is still as it was in 1872, and still a name to con- jure with.
Major William L. Marshall, now Brigadier General, Chief of Engineers, United States Army, was asked whether he thought the scour of the currents was going to maintain the required depth in the "Ambrose Channel," which you know is the new and direct channel from the Narrows to the sea. Gen- eral Marshall conceived the idea of this important work and it is still under his charge, although he is now Chief of Engineers. The General smiled, in his good humored way, and replied: "Well, if it don't, there are plenty of dredges that will."
And the direful results which were feared in 1855 have not followed; the great development of our water front is ours; and if we have to dredge a little now and then, we have the commerce that requires it and the means with which to do it.
On August 11th, 1880, Congress passed an act providing for the appointment of a board of engineers to be called the New York Harbor Line Board, composed of United States Army officers, who were necessarily, by their training, also engineers;
45
this board to act in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of War on all matters relating to the waters of the Bay of New York and waters tributary thereto.
Since 1880, all applications for the establishment of dock lines must be made to the Secretary of War, who refers them to this Harbor Line Board, who, after public hearings, advise and recommend lines to the Secretary of War for his approval ; and under the River and Harbor Act of March 3rd, 1899, no structure or filling in is allowed to be commenced in these waters unless the lines for the same have been passed upon by the Secretary of War.
The State of New Jersey, as well as the City of New York, has been active and persistent in securing the consent of the Secretary of War to the extension of the dock lines on the Hudson River, New York Bay, and waters tributary thereto. Both sides have succeeded in securing extensions until it seems that the waterway of the Hudson River could no further be judiciously encroached upon. The claim or charge is made by New York that Hudson County has been a greater trespasser than New York, and instances the extension of the shore line of Harsimus Cove some 3000 feet in support of this charge; but it must be remembered that Harsimus Cove is or was an indentation into the westerly shore of the Hudson River, be- tween Castle Point and North Point in Jersey City, on which Edge's Wind Mill stood, had very little water over it, and the filling in of the same was an advantage to the regimen of the Hudson River ; while New York has made its greatest encroach- ment some 1300 feet into the river at its narrowest point, op- posite Castle Point, leaving only a width of half a mile in the river at that point.
We must remember also in this connection that the chan- nel of the river is on the New York side of the centre and with- in the past month we have been treated to the strange sight of an ocean steamer, the Deutchland, hard and fast aground just in front of the ferry at the foot of Exchange Place, Jersey City, by reason of the northerly winds making an unusually low ebb tide.
But what compensation time brings! Directly underneath where this steamer was held by the mud of the river bottom, busy men were working and construction cars were running to and fro through the twin tunnels that will soon connect Ex-
46
change Place, Jersey City, with Cortlandt Street, New York; and directly under where the ancient ferry boat, D. S. Gregory, is shown in the advertisement previously referred to, of lots for sale on Hudson Street in 1857, run these two tunnels that shall take us, in two or three minutes, to the business centre of New York, while, with the D. S. Gregory, it took us half an hour at best and sometimes half a day.
The history of the development of Hudson County would not be complete without reference to these tunnels and to the courage and genius of the men who have made them an ac- complished fact.
The first tunnel was from Fifteenth Street, Jersey City, to Morton Street, New York.
The tunnel in question has a history involving the financial and engineering ambitions and hopes of men long since ruined and dead. The river ooze, through which the present con- struction to-day so eloquently and convincingly testifies to the skill and energy of the engineers who planned and executed it, once held in its slimy embrace the bodies of men whose lives had been drowned out by the inrush of the waters of the Hud- son River, and although the tragedy is now almost forgotten, in the New York Bay Cemetery, in Jersey City, stands a mod- est shaft surmounted by the figure of a man. On the face of the stone the legend reads: "In memory of Peter Woodland, aged 32, killed in the disaster at the Hudson River tunnel, on Wednesday, July 21, 1880." And he was a man, for he elected to drown with fourteen of his workmen in his effort to save them rather than save himself.
The history of this tunnel, or these tunnels, (for there are two), each designed for single track,-one eastward and one westward, but coming together at either end,-goes back over a quarter of a century.
In the year 1874 a company obtained a franchise and began operations. The method of construction adopted was the use of compressed air, but the shield, so successfully used by the present engineers, was not thought of, and to its absence was due the frightful tragedy above referred to. After the accident in 1880, work was abandoned until 1890, when a syndicate of English capitalists was formed, which prosecuted the work, accomplishing about 1,500 feet in the north tunnel and about 600 feet in the south tunnel. Striking a ledge of rock, how-
47
ever, at this time, and no acubt striking much more formidable rocks in their financial boring, the project was abandoned.
Then came Mr. William G. McAdoo, a New York lawyer, as President, who associated with himself Mr. Charles M. Jacobs and Mr. John V. Davies, the eminent engineers, and under the masterly supervision of these men, the River Tun- nels are an accomplished fact.
RECEIPTS.
The total receipts from the sale of riparian lands up to the present time amount to about six million dollars, and the greater part of this has come from the sale of the water front of Hudson County. It is estimated that there are still in the possession of the State lands that will come into use within a reasonable period valued at, perhaps, three and a half million, and still other lands that will have to wait for future develop- ment, valued at, perhaps, ten million.
The administration of this valuable and important interest of the State is one requiring careful consideration. It is a subject but little understood, it is a matter in which the interests of a greater part of the State seem opposed to that of the other part, and, as in other important matters, opinions are most freely expressed by those having the least knowledge on the subject.
The policy of the State has been to sell these lands for commercial development. This has brought a considerable revenue into the State and into the school fund; it has made possible the establishment on our shores of important industries. A representative committee, composed of Senators and mem- bers of the Legislature, in 1906, who gave this subject careful consideration and made a personal examination of the improve- ments, stated in their report that they
"were not prepared to advise that the policy which had made possible this development was really wrong," and while this is negative praise, it is their opinion after care- ful consideration, and if any other conclusion could have been reached, it, no doubt, would have been.
The opinion is expressed by people who evidently do not fully understand the subject, that these lands should have been "held", as they term it, for the use of the State.
In the first place, this opinion carries with it an apparent ignorance of the fact that, while the State is the owner of the
48
land under water, subject to the rights or equities, if any, of the shore owner, it owns no upland, has no means of access from the land to the water, or of access from the water to the land, and, as a practical question, the upland owner is the only person who can buy the land under water and administer it.
Having in mind the fact that these lands under water are appurtenant to upland wholly under the title and control of pri- vate ownership, to obtain which, if there was any law making such a thing possible, by the right of eminent domain, could only be acquired by the State upon payment to such owners of the full value of the upland, which value would have reflected in it the principal value which is now supposed to be attached to the land under water, there would be no practical way in which it could appropriate and expend the millions necessary to any development, to say nothing of the impossibility of an- ticipating what kind of development would meet the require- ments and needs of the various enterprises seeking location on our shores.
Some of these tracts, for which the State has realized enor- mous sums during the past years, are comparitively small hold- ings, part only of the holdings and works of enterprises already located there and forming part of the tangible wealth and worth of the State; many of them unattractive water fronts, needing the initiative of interested owners who have sought out and induced enterprises to come to this State and locate, and who have expended millions of dollars in making the loca- tion of these enterprises possible, but only after seeking them out and finding just what kind of development is demanded for that particular industry.
In most of these cases these owners have become the pio- neers in the development of a section that had theretofore es- caped the notice or had not been impressed on men responsible for the establishment of manufacturing and other enterprises needing water front, and the result of this individual enter- prise has been the creation of new communities as well as the rehabilitation of older ones.
It would have seemed not only a commercial absurdity but an affront to these men, who, in advance of their time and without the encouragement of their fellows, sought out these enormous enterprises and brought them to the shores of New Jersey, not to have had the cooperation and encouragement of
49
the State in their efforts to induce the holders of capital to lo- cate within the borders of our State.
The impression seems to be in the minds of some that the State of New Jersey held in completeness and perfection some going concern, or at least a water front developed as to its dock- ing and wharfing privileges, improved and made suitable for the erection of buildings and works, with surrounding accommo- dations for the housing and schooling and churching of the operatives of these works, with the necessary railroad connec- tions, and, in short, a city complete and perfect, except for the occupants.
The exact reverse of all this is true. The State owns not a single foot of upland. A great deal of the upland in question is difficult of improvement and development; a great deal of it imust be filled up at enormous expense and the railroads must be brought to it; and, more than all, in almost every instance, the water front itself is not capable, in its present condition, of use, but must be made so by the expenditure of large sums of money by the owner of the upland in order to create such a depth of water as to make the narrow frontage sold by the State available for commercial uses.
In this connection it is of interest to hark back to the report of the Legislative Committee on this very subject of the policy of the disposition of the State's lands, in which Hudson County is so vitally interested, made to the Legislature on January 15th, 1883, over twenty-six years ago; The Committee says:
"Had this question been considered at the outset of action by the State, doubtless much might have been said on both sides of the proposition of long leases by the State, but we are not prepared to suggest that policy now. It is urged with great force that the best commercial results cannot be attained except by a title as complete as the State can give."
STATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT.
A statement of the location and extent of the water front of Hudson County, much of which has been reclaimed and im- proved, will be of interest:
From the County Line on the north to the north side of Weehawken Cove,-about three miles,-the exterior line for improvements is on an average one thousand feet beyond the original shore line and comprises about 350 acres.
This section includes the famous duelling ground where Hamilton and Burr fought.
50
At Weehawken Cove, in front of the famous Elysian Fields, the line for improvements is half a mile beyond the original shore, at its greatest distance, and the cove is about one mile in length and covers about 130 acres.
The Elysian Fields was the scene of the murder of the attractive tobacco shop girl, Mary Cecelia Rogers, on July 25, 1841. The Elysian Fields of that day, no doubt, corresponded to the Coney Island of a later day. This murder formed the foundation for Poe's "Mystery of Marie Roget", which was written in Philadelphia and appeared in Snowden's "Lady's Companion" in November, December, 1842, February, 1843.
The facts in this celebrated case that made the Elysian Fields famous, or infamous almost the world over, are as follows :
Mary Cecelia Rogers, when about nineteen years of age, was known as "The pretty cigar girl", she having worked in John Anderson's tobacco shop at 321 Broadway. New York then had a population of 300,000, living mostly below Canal Street.
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.