PUNKIN DUSTER FINDS THE WOODCHUCK BOROUGH
According to report of The Hackensack Republican on December 20, 1894, the city dwellers of Englewood, accustomed as they were to macadamized roads, municipal water supply, sewers and street lights, had not yet been carried away by the borough craze. Any proposed dismemberment of their township by boroughization, however, would "probably compel them, against their wishes, to incorporate." A week later, the Republican intimated that a considerable number of people - especially in Englewood - would be surprised to learn that an application to incorporate a Borough of Teaneck had recently been submitted to Judge Van Valen. This surreptitious, preemptive strike was said to be "wholly protective in its character, being forced upon the movers by the objectionable features of the 'woodchuck' borough craze." The W. W. Phelps Estate, comprising the most valuable part of the territory embraced within the limits of this proposed borough, had contributed substantially over the years to public road work within its borders, to which cause the surrounding neighborhoods had persistently refused to contribute. These same selfish communities now intended to hold fast within their municipal limits "as much as possible of this estate and adjacent properties, which, though remote from such communities, is near enough for purposes of taxation." Out of self-preservation, Teaneck decided to head off the competition.1 As originally demarcated, the Borough of Teaneck would be "much larger geographically" and possess "more population (over 300)" than several other new boroughs. The signers of the Teaneck petition represented $141,425 of the $246,925 assessed valuation of property embraced within its proposed boundaries.2
From a sense of what the Republican idealized as " 'Township Pride' - a desire to maintain, unbroken, the lines of the original, simon-pure old township," Englewood residents were determined to resist centrifugal stresses and to sustain their accustomed hegemony over surrounding rural neighborhoods. But new rumors of political revolution wafted into town.3 Barely awakened to secession from the west, Englewood suddenly found itself fighting on its eastern front: Cliff Dwellers had moved stealthfully to form a borough of Englewood Cliffs out of that portion of Englewood Township fronting the Hudson River, running west about a half mile from the edge of the Palisades, from the Ridgefield Township line north to the Palisade Township line, and including about 125 acres of Palisade Township on their northern border in order to qualify for representation on the County Board of Chosen Freeholders. The same leading citizens of Englewood who were anxious to hold Teaneck within their orbit now did everything in their power to stifle the borough of Englewood Cliffs.
The town of Englewood was disadvantaged in the race for municipal independence because its territory exceeded the legal limits of four-square miles and a population of 5,000, as set by the General Incorporation by Election Act of 1878. Its civic leaders compensated with a novel legal strategy. At a public meeting in the Lyceum on December 29, 1894, E. B. Convers, president of the Englewood Improvement Association, alluded to the unpleasant discovery that "rural communities on our outskirts, resolving themselves into borough governments" intended to "deprive us of a portion of our territory." Without warning, "like a thunder-bolt from a clear sky," he and his fellow townsfolk had learned "that the Palisades were about to be taken from us" by formation of Englewood Cliffs, the vote for incorporation there being scheduled for January 4th. To the west, residents of Teaneck had initiated "a scheme for a borough that would control all our drainage system [that is, the Overpeck Canal]," thereby imperiling the health of the community. He persuaded his fellow villagers to seek formation of a town coextensive with the entire township (using the so-called Short Act of April 24, 1888) under the legal opinion, proffered by George R. Dutton, that such a special-chartered town government would supersede not only the government of the former township but also of all boroughs within its limits.4
The Englewood Improvement Association thus formed a Committee of Seven to advance incorporation of the Town of Englewood under the Short Act and "also to take such further action as may be desirable in their judgment to preserve the unity of Englewood township."5 Rising to the occasion, Samuel M. Riker, an energetic member of the Committee, gathered ninety-nine signatures from Englewood property owners in a single day and applied that very evening to the Englewood Township Committee, seeking a special election. Accommodatingly, the Township Committee published notice of an election to be held February 5, 1895, the earliest possible date since the ordinance had to "stand over" for one week. To frustrate the "Cliff Dwellers," promoters of the Town of Englewood also sought an injunction from the State Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari, contending "that none of the persons who signed the application for the Borough of Englewood Cliffs had made the necessary affidavit of ownership of property, and it may well be that although their names are on the tax list as freeholders they may not be freeholders now." It was a long shot, but a hearing on the matter was scheduled for February 5th. Citizens of Englewood Cliffs curtly responded that Englewood wanted to retain their section "only for purposes of taxation." They submitted figures showing that, despite paying many thousands of dollars in taxes for improvements, they received not a dollar's worth of benefits, whereas Englewood village acquired good streets, lights, water, sewers, police and other public amenities. In retaliation, promoters of Englewood Cliffs contested the Englewood proceedings in the State Supreme Court. At the scheduled public referendum on January 4, 1895, incorporation of the Borough of Englewood Cliffs was approved, 24 to 1.
On January 3, 1895, The Bergen Index reported that residents of Highwood and Nordhoff were also considering separation from Englewood.6 Within the week, nine-tenths of Nordhoff's taxpayers signed a petition favoring an independent borough.7 At Teaneck's borough referendum, held January 14, 1895, in the office of William Bennett on Teaneck Road, 46 out of 53 voters favored incorporation. When Englewood citizens also certioraried that outcome to the State Supreme Court, The Hackensack Republican coolly warned that "Englewood village cannot 'hold up' with physical force those who desire to escape her onerous taxation for centralization, but she can do the next thing possible, which is to give the lawyers an opportunity to earn fees." Its editor encouraged the Legislature to "take such action that the anti-disintegrants will be satisfied to furl their banners and let their neighbors depart in peace."8 And that is exactly what happened: objections to Teaneck's independence quickly evaporated when the promoters of "greater Englewood" looked at the matter "through different glasses" and agreed to submit to the departure of Teaneck - not as a borough but as a new township - admitting that the Teaneck section was strictly a rural community where the interests of property owners were not in accord with those of a thickly settled city such as Englewood.
Bogota and Leonia now lost ground as "the people along Teaneck road were desirous of being part of the new township [of Teaneck] rather than in the boroughs of Leonia and Bogota with which some of them are now connected, and they were gratified" with their inclusion.9 Papers were quickly prepared and submitted to the Legislature. The new Township of Teaneck encompassed about seven square miles, taking in what was then known as Road Districts Nos. 4 and 5, embracing portions of the Township of Englewood as well as portions of the Boroughs of Leonia and Bogota lying in the adjacent Township of Ridgefield.10 The editor of the Republican concluded that "this arrangement appears to be a very sensible one, and it will relieve Englewood of much territory that would have been a source of concern under the [town] government it proposes to establish." Assemblyman David D. Zabriskie put the bill creating Teaneck Township through the Assembly on February 18, 1895; Senator Henry Winton pushed it through the State Senate on the following day and Governor George Werts signed it into law at once.11
Delford Borough experienced a growth spurt, aggregating the properties of Richard Van Wagener, Herman Bartsch, J. D. Newkirk and Garret D. Demarest in the Flatts section, east of the river. On Tuesday, January 15, 1895, Cliffside Park voted to become a borough, the project being carried 81 to 13.
Until the Boroughing is Done
In January 1895, County Superintendent John Terhune provided State Superintendent Poland with a preliminary assessment of the effects of the new School Consolidation act upon Bergen County. Pilloried but unfazed, he revisited the battleground where Punkin Duster and Commuter had contested for Home Rule:
"The claim is made by many that the tendency of the time is for small local governments. This is one reason for the formation of boroughs, so as to obtain control of the schools. Another reason is that township government distributes unequally and unjustly the taxes for roads and other improvements. The bulk of the revenue from the rural sections in many instances is applied to the larger villages for water, light, sewerage, etc., from which these agricultural sections receive no benefit."
"But, the most plausible reason for this borough craze is the clause in the law making the township assume the indebtedness. So few understand this section, and it being so easily misrepresented or misinterpreted, that the people look upon it suspiciously and denounce it as an imposition. Those who understand it and attempt to explain it are looked upon as cranks and impostors."
"Another objection cited by one of my most enthusiastic Boards of Education is inconvenience. The territory of some townships is so large that members reside five or six miles apart, and it is expensive and laborious to convene them as often as the cause requires."
The County Superintendent noted that the forty-three school districts existing in Bergen County prior to July 1, 1894, had accumulated a total indebtedness of $305,570. This large sum, including every township except Franklin, made it obvious "why boroughs are formed in every direction." He felt these boroughs should never have been allowed to form separate and distinct school districts "unless containing a school enumeration of at least 500 children." The borough craze, in his estimation, had been used to circumvent the intent of the Consolidation act with chilling effect upon civil liberties of a sizable minority who opposed boroughization:
"The idea of allowing a bare majority the power to accept or reject a few that have dared to oppose the new fad, and for this simple expression of their rights to cut them from all school facilities is radically wrong and gross injustice. There is no defense for the injured, but they must meekly accept the situation. It is inconsistent with liberty, a term so dear to us all".
Superintendent Terhune felt that the situation could only be remedied by repealing the law or by making school-district lines coincide with township lines, except in such cases where the school population truly warranted formation of an independent municipality. He also recommended that Boards of Education be given "absolute power to order assessed a sum not in excess of one-fourth per cent on the total taxable valuation of the district for current expenses." In cases where new buildings or additional land had to be acquired, then consent of a majority of the legal voters or of the township committee or borough council should be required. Lastly, he confided that any adjustment of finances and of the school census in such rapidly changing circumstances would be "a difficult problem." Since borough lines did not correspond with original district lines, assessors confronted a "much entangled predicament." Furthermore, untangling the mess could not even begin "until the boroughing is done." He clearly felt overwhelmed, concluding: "I would not attempt to estimate, let alone approximate, the changes caused by the boroughs. It is simply inconceivable."
As duly noted by Superintendent Terhune, those left without the necessary school facilities of their own by intrusion of new municipal boundaries now had to scramble. On February 14, 1895, the Republican reported that Riverside Borough, having no school house in the Cherry Hill section, moved to annex the adjacent Fairmount tract in New Barbadoes Township - which lay outside of the Hackensack Improvement Commission limits - thereby absorbing New Barbadoes School District No. 4 and the Cherry Hill school house on Johnson Avenue. If annexation failed, then Riverside Borough would sooner or later be forced to erect another school of its own. The residents of Fairmount, however, immediately sought union with the city of Hackensack, desiring to "open the way for macadam, sewers, lights, and all other improvements necessary to enhance the value of property located so convenient to a large town and possessing such fine natural advantages." Accordingly, thirty-nine Fairmount residents and property owners presented a petition to the Hackensack Improvement Commission on February 8, 1895, requesting annexation. Milton Demarest, Commission counsel, was instructed to prepare an act for presentation to the Legislature, embodying the purposes of the petitioners. Fairmount was annexed to Hackensack by the Legislature on March 5, 1895, adding sixty-four voters to the town.12
Would the season for boroughing and annexation soon end? On February 14, 1895, The Hackensack Republican observed how: "The groundhog could not see his shadow, but the woodchuck borough sees the shadow of legislation that it doesn't like." To make borough movements more representative of the desires of the population and generally more difficult to succeed, State Senator Johnson of Hackensack proposed a supplement to the Borough Act requiring that "no election for the formation of any borough government shall hereafter be ordered unless the petition for that purpose shall be signed by persons owning at least one-half of the taxable real estate in the limits of the proposed borough..." Moreover, where a proposed borough embraced parts of more than one township, the petition had to include signatures of "persons owning at least one-half in value of such real estate in the limits of said proposed borough in each of the townships." Previous enabling legislation had required only one-tenth of the taxable value to be represented on the petition. Senator Johnson's bill became law on February 18, 1895.13
With the arrival of Republican William J. Wilson of Allendale, Bergen County's latest Freeholder, the County Board was again tied, the twenty-eight Freeholders being evenly divided along party lines. As promised, State Senator Winton (D) introduced a bill providing that, as of June 1st, third-class counties should have a Board of Chosen Freeholders composed of nine members. In response, The Englewood Press suggested that the number of Freeholders should represent the previous townships of the County without regard to boroughs formed by their subdivision. The Tenafly Record agreed that "the ridiculously large and ever-increasing Board of Freeholders should be permanently reduced to a sensible, working number" and accordingly recommended either "the division of a county into Freeholder districts based on population, or have a Freeholder from each of the fifteen townships of this county." It recognized, however, that "with the present numerous municipalities in the county, each a separate election district, such further divisions may not be practicable." Assemblyman David Zabriskie responded by introducing a bill that confined the number of Freeholders to the number of townships existing before the borough movement forced their dismemberment. On the same track, State Senator William M. Johnson (R) proposed that henceforth borough voters would choose a Freeholder at the annual election in the township wherein the majority of said voters resided. In case of doubt or dispute as to which old township encompassed the residence of a majority of legal voters in the new composite borough, the interested borough council or township committee could apply to the President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas for final adjudication of the matter. In other words, for purposes of Freeholder elections, boroughs would simply be considered election districts within a township. Senator Johnson's bill was enacted into law on February 25, 1895.14 Under its provisions, all Freeholders elected by boroughs formed out of parts of two or more townships would go out of office on the second Wednesday of May 1895.
The Englewood Township Committee published notice of its proposed borough election to be held March 5, 1895. With local elections traditionally held the second Tuesday in March, rural and suburban politicians were seen "hugging store and bar-room stoves, devising ways and means to continue their hold upon the petty offices."
In accordance with provisions of Senator Johnson's bill, the terms of the borough Freeholders expired on May 8, 1895, thereby relieving the congested condition of the meeting room. On May 9, 1895, incorporation of the Palisade section of Englewood Township into a borough, named Englewood Cliffs, was again approved by its residents, 34 to 1. Addition of a borough clerk, a marshall and a Board of Health to the fourteen elective officers of the new borough made a total of twenty-one borough officials or agents. By head count, the Borough of Englewood Cliffs had only forty-seven voters, of which thirty-five had participated in the recent election.15 Looking askance at its small neighbor, Tenafly, boasting a population of over 1,500 residents, squawked about deserving a Chosen Freeholder of its own.
A Much Entangled Predicament
The consequences of rapid-fire boroughing reverberated through school halls. In September 1895, the Boards of Education of Washington Township and Eastwood Borough failed to agree to a secession of part of Eastwood to Washington Township for school purposes. Twice the respective Boards had considered the question and both times the Eastwood Board unanimously declined. Abram C. Holdrum, the principal agitator for secession from the borough, collected signatures representing $30,000 in taxable real estate on a petition to make known the wishes of the residents in his section. The Eastwood Board had already given up that part of its territory lying east of the Hackensack River to the Borough of Old Tappan for school purposes.
In March 1896, residents of Riverside Borough were incensed when the County and State Superintendents ordered students residing in that portion of the former River Edge school district lying east of the Hackensack River (now part of New Milford) to attend the River Edge School, seeing how they had been left by the borough craze without school facilities. The Riverside Board of Education unanimously objected to the addition of this territory on the grounds of inadequate compensation and a petition protesting against admission of part of Palisade Township to the borough school district was forwarded to the State Board of Education on March 31, 1896. Therein, they cited the fact that the children from Palisade Township had been forced upon them at a cost of $11 per year for each pupil, whereas it cost $19 per child to conduct the River Edge School.
Meanwhile, officers of Palisade Township decided to bring suit against the Hackensack Water Company for the amount claimed on bonded indebtedness for construction of the Peetzburgh school. At the time the school property was purchased and the building erected, much of the Water Company's property was within the school district and subject to taxation for interest on the bonded indebtedness and for payment of bonds as they became due. Subsequently, the Company's property had been included within the limits of the new Borough of Delford and the Water Company declined to pay taxes to Palisade Township.
The Paramus school also became a bone of contention between Orvil Township and Ridgewood Village, since the building had been erected and maintained by Orvil Township until enactment of the new consolidated school law by which Ridgewood absorbed the Paramus School District. Orvil Township still assisted with its maintenance but was compelled to pay tuition for pupils who, living in that neighborhood, naturally continued to attend their local school.
In February 1896, the Legislature annexed a portion of Lodi Township to New Barbadoes so as to place Polifly Road as far south as the Lodi Branch Railroad within the boundaries of the Hackensack Improvement Commission.16 Scuttlebutt had it that the "chief purpose [of the annexation] is, as appears on the surface, to secure improvement of Polifly road." By further act of the legislature, the Township of New Barbadoes became conterminous in boundaries with the city of Hackensack and the New Barbadoes Township Committee was abolished in favor of government by the Hackensack Improvement Board of Commissioners.
Always Room for One More
On March 9, 1896, application was made to the court for formation of yet another borough; this one, to be known as North Arlington, taking in the southern portion of Union Township. On Monday, March 26, 1896, borough advocates won the election in North Arlington with 46 votes in favor and none opposed. The new borough adjoined the northern limits of Kearney Township, the Belleville Turnpike and Saw Mill Creek forming the boundary between Hudson and Bergen Counties. The new borough contained about 400 inhabitants within about two square miles of territory. Politically, the population was about evenly divided but the first election of borough officials was to be a non-partisan affair.
...And One Less
In March 1896, with approach of the spring election, Eastwood Democrats quarreled and "a hot fight was the result."17 Boss Edward Sarson's faction was shut out of the borough government as Thomas J. Post, John G. Knoner and Samuel D. Durie won the regular Democratic nominations for Councilmen. The Republicans, previously an ignored minority, "took advantage of the fool business among the Democrats and gained a councilman as the result." The Bergen County Democrat flatly stated that "if the Democrats are jackasses enough to raise a quarrel and brush against each other at every election, the sooner they are put down the better." In retaliation for his ouster, Sarson garnered signatures from his Democratic friends and resident Republicans, totaling nearly two-thirds of the eligible voters, on a petition requesting designation of a time and place for holding an election to decide whether or not Eastwood's borough incorporation should be continued. Republicans were especially "anxious to get back into the township." On March 26, 1896, Eastwood voters went to the polls in John Lachmund's Hall at River Vale: 9 Republicans and 23 Democrats voted to continue borough incorporation, but the victorious opposition counted 13 Republicans and 34 Democrats. The Democrat protested that the electoral outcome in favor of abolishing the Democratic borough of Eastwood included "one who made a mistake in the ballot he meant to vote and a number of purchased votes." Its editor lamented the loss:
"This section by so recklessly throwing away the advantages it possessed in a local government of its own has received a setback from which it will not soon recover. Eastwood borough has in the two years of its existence made a record of which anyone except a political buccaneer might feel proud. The borough has no debt, all claims being paid up to date, with a cash balance of $56 in the hands of collector and treasurer, with [$] 261 uncollected taxes of 1895 and with $300 license money coming in during April and December. There would have been available for road purposes between $600 and $700 for the year '96 without raising the tax rate a penny. The school has been a matter of especial pride and satisfaction to all interested during the year. Will a stepmother, with extra charges of its own, do as well by it as its own mother?"
A Special Election was held in the Old Tappan School House on April 23, 1896 "to vote for or against annexing to the said borough of Old Tappan a part of the territory of Harrington township adjacent to said borough..." extending west to the Hackensack River. This was the portion of the borough of Eastwood which had been taken from Harrington Township. Feelings against the proposed return of the western section of Eastwood to Washington Township were reportedly "running high and threats are made of contesting the election in the courts."
At Trenton, the Borough Committee finished its deliberations and introduced a bill into the Assembly which provided for repeal of the Borough Acts of 1882, 1890, 1891 and all supplements thereto. Under provisions of the Incorporation by State Act of March 26, 1896: "No borough or village shall hereafter be incorporated in this state except by special act of the legislature, and every borough or village so incorporated shall be governed by the general laws of this state relating to boroughs or villages respectively."18 Henceforth, neighborhood politics and popular referenda would no longer determine "Home Rule." The creative power over municipal entities now passed into the corridors and chambers of the State House in Trenton, the gaslit domain of machinating politicians. For the time being, woodchuck boroughing came to a standstill.
1The proposed boundaries of the Borough of Teaneck began at the southwest corner of Englewood Township at the Anderson Street bridge, then ran north along the Hackensack River to a point 300 feet north (at a right angle) from the center of West Englewood Avenue; it thence ran east (keeping 300 feet north of and parallel with West Englewood Avenue) to the center of Teaneck Road; thence south to the center of West Englewood Avenue; thence east on a line (following substantially the same course as the center line of West Englewood Avenue) to the center of Lafayette Avenue; thence south along the center of Lafayette Avenue to a point 300 feet north of Railroad Avenue; thence west to the Northern Railroad, continuing south along the railroad to the dividing line between Englewood and Ridgefield Townships, and then following the township line south and east to the place of beginning.
2Signers of the Teaneck petition included Aymar Embury, Charles Kuntze, Charles A. Canavello, the Estate of William Walter Phelps by its executors and trustees, Frank S. DeRonde, John M. Robinson, Sheffield Phelps, A. C. Coe, John J. Phelps, Sophie C. Henderson and George Blanck.
3The Hackensack Republican, January 10, 1895
4The Incorporation by Election Act of April 24, 1888, introduced by Assemblyman E. Frank Short (D - Hudson), provided that the inhabitants of any town or borough or of any township having a special charter, or of any township which has or hereafter may have a population exceeding six thousand inhabitants, may become a body politic and corporate, as a Town whenever a majority of the voters decided to do so at a special election. The township committee, borough council or other governing body was empowered to set the time and place for such a special election upon the petition of at least fifty residents. The act was later ruled unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court.
5The Committee included: William Bennett, Donald Mackay, Samuel M. Riker, R. H. Rodchester and Joseph H. Tillotson. Abram Tallman and Joseph W. Stagg were subsequently added, increasing their number to Nine.
6Highwood Station and Post Office were situated on the Northern Railroad at the intersection of Ivy Lane and Hudson Avenue, near Englewood's northern border with Tenafly. Nordhoff was a station-stop on the Northern Railroad at the southern end of Englewood, adjacent to Leonia. Nordhoff Place, between Route 4 and Cedar Lane, today marks the spot.
7A station on the Northern Railroad was named for Charles Nordhoff who, in his day, was considered "one of the brightest lights in journalism." He was a resident of Alpine where he owned a handsome cottage upon the Palisades, adjoining Sweeting Miles' property. Nordhoff was "an enthusiastic believer in the future of Bergen county" and served as one of William Walter Phelps' advisers. He last worked as the Washington correspondent for the New York Herald until ill health forced his retirement. Charles Nordhoff died in California in July 1901. See "news notes," The Bergen County Democrat, July 19, 1901.
8The Hackensack Republican, January 17, 1895
9The Hackensack Republican, January 24, 1895
10The boundary survey began at the Hackensack River in the center of (Old) New Bridge Road and ran east along New Bridge Road on the division line between Palisade and Englewood Townships to the western boundary of Bergenfield, then continued east along the township division line. On the east, the boundary was to be a line running 2,500 feet east of Teaneck Road from Ivy Lane south to a point 800 feet south of Railroad (now Forest) Avenue where the line turned east and ran parallel with (and 800 feet south of) Railroad (Forest) Avenue to a point 200 feet west of Overpeck Canal (alongside what is now Overpeck Avenue in Englewood). To exclude drainage works considered necessary to the City of Englewood, the Teaneck line stayed 200 feet away from the Overpeck Canal, running south to the center of Cedar Lane and turning southeast along the center of that road to the center of the canal and creek, before continuing south to the line of Ridgefield Park. The division line here between Ridgefield Park and Teaneck was the southern boundary line of the farms of Cornelius Van Valen and Jasper Westervelt (hence Jasper Avenue). From this demarkation, the new township line proceeded west until it reached the east line of the Borough of Bogota, running 150 feet east of Queen Anne Road, then north to the Hackensack and Fort Lee Road. The boundary ran west along this road to the division line between the farms of John Degraw on the east (hence Degraw Avenue) and lands of George Foster and Ralph Bogert to the west (in Bogota), but it cut across lands of Albert Z. Bogert and Peter P. Bogert. The township line then turned west along the dividing line between Peter P. Bogert's land on the south and the Estate of William Walter Phelps and Jacob Terhune's farm on the north, running to the Hackensack River.
11Laws of New Jersey 1895, Ch. XXXVII
12Laws of New Jersey 1895, Ch. LXXXVIII, "A Further Supplement to an act entitled 'An act to incorporate the Hackensack Improvement Commission,' approved April 1st, 1868."
13Laws of New Jersey 1895, Ch. XXII, "An Act concerning the formation of borough governments."
14Laws of New Jersey 1895, Ch.ß XLIV, "A Supplement to an act, entitled 'An act for the formation of borough governments, approved April 5th, 1878,' which supplement was approved May 9th, 1894, and is Chapter CLXXVI of the Laws of 1894."
15On June 11, 1895, the baby borough of Englewood Cliffs was officially born by election of William O. Allison, Mayor; Rev. Artemas Dean, William Conner, Alfred E. Sage and Capt. C. W. Van Wagoner, Councilmen; John G. Ropes, Assessor; Benjamin P. westervelt, Collector; William Braund, W. C. Lester and Robert Morrison, Commissioners of Appeal; Edward Guntz, Poormaster; and Louis Kimble, Pound Keeper.
16According to Senate 303, the annexed portion began in the south line of Essex Street and on the east line of Lodi Borough and followed the borough line south to the Lodi Railroad, thence east along the Lodi Railroad to the line of the N. J. & N. Y. Railroad, thence north about 2,000 feet, thence east to the township line.
17The Bergen County Democrat, March 13, 1896
18 Laws of New Jersey 1896, p. 285