, 1869-03-13

Hns the State tho Rig hi 70 S:li tbs
LIKE Ffoas9


TO tic Editor ot The Chicago r1lounc:
Since the question has arisen 1t has been
taken Tor grot.td that tho state Of ItlIuoE<
owns the laud under Lake Michigan within
her territorial boundaries, and, as such own
CT, has the rigetto dispose Of It by grant OF
Gift to tnd,riduals.
This Is not 80. The State OF Illinois Ia the
sovereign owner of the land !; but has 20
proprietary interest in 1t. The interest which
she holds Il An Incident to, and inseparable
from, sovereignty. Nar,qable public high
ways, snch as the great lakes and rivers, arc
not lands which may be sold, and the title to
them passes With q ira nsfer of Sovereignty
only. 1t has always been held, from the
time Of val1u to the present day, that right
10 the shore between high and low water
mark is sovereign right and not p.opsie-
tary right. This was frankly put by the
Hon. john acrgant, In his argument On
the winning klde In the case Of
Pollard Lessee vs.. Hogan g uow:), aud has
the case Of snlth rs. State OF Maryland, us
How. "A, 75l, the United States Supreme
Court decided that the submerged land alil
cent to the sovereign 5tate is h.ld only Al a
pubic trust. in mnst treaties, conveying the
soil or territory from one sovereign power TO
| ers, although land, forts, &C., are mentioned.
Whys Hecansc rivers do moi pass br grnpt.
but as IN attribute Of sovereignty. The
| ripht passes In peculia- manner. II Is hcld
in t'ust fos every individual proprietor iu The
| State, or this county, or tho United States,
and therefore requires trustee Of great dug
! Mtg. Rivers must be kept OBJ, and, under
the Constitution Of the United States, ase
subjects Of regulation for the purposes OF
foreign trade and Interstate com mneiee.
| Ind fTH 1aT m Errr1a1 tkn
King, bY virtue Of his royal prcsogatirc. may
grant the soil under tIdc.wateF, ret tue
grantee cannot exercise bis right OF property
| 80 as to lD}ure the paramount rights Of
navigation; The interest Of the grantee in
person who owns the fee simple OF the ROAD,
| wfo, when the road is discontinued, nay ap-
propriate the grounds to bis OWE purposes,
but until then he cannot obstruci is passage.
Lord nale sass that 1.-THE ja' privisa0s Of
| pu6ltcun Of the community" See, also. the
csec Of Mayor OF Mobile vs. Esbasa u Porter,
59l.> But the common law Of England Is
modified hY our Institutions.
| Under the treaty with Spain Of February,
| 1879, by which We acquired part OF the Ter
5itoty Of Alabama, 1t wzs Insisted that the
Cnlted States had nnder the treaty succ eeded
to all the rights and powers OF the King
Of Spain. and Us, BY the laws and usagcs Of
sra.n, The King had the rix ht TO grant to a
subject the soil under uavissble waters, that,
therefore, the United STATES had the right
| 10 exercise the sasne powers. But the su.
prcmc Court OF the United States answer
this hS deciding -" If It were true that the
United States acquired the whole OF Ala.
would result ~ thos: couteuded tor. 1t
cannot be admitted that the
King Of spain could, by treaty or otherwise,
Inaptft TO the United States any of bis royal
p1erogatlTes, and much less can II he I'D,
FNEft lad hat %hspr-h has .nn1tr- nis
power to excrelse them. Every nation &C.
quirtng territory. by treaty or otherwise,
must hold 1t subject to the constitution aud
| laws Of its o~u government aud not accord
Ing TO the government cedlt 1t. Vat. Law
q Sasiepa b. p.s, :; lg s:lo. sit, rs and b.
How. @,5.} In this case II was held that
the U1itcd States held the whole Of
the Northwest Territory us ttusf for the peo-
pie Of the United States, and In that portion
Of the territory IN which the public had d.
rect Interest and easement, such as that Of the
r7Eht Of navigation. thr Fed .ral Government
had uo power To .tsanster or grant to indt.
| yidua1s Is such the s3u under nnyigab}e
streams. Tha. their title to THESE Was not a
proprietary one, bat sovereign and pollti-
cal one, which WAS to be cedcd By the GEN
cral Government TO the Iew States Is she
calfed them into existence, 10 be held aud
exercised " them under the same power
and trust. It was for this reason,
| and In the protection Of this h1gh
trnst, that ahc made It condition
precedent TO the right Of any new ktAte to
enter into the Euion that all navi9aoie Va.
tcEs within such States should forever re-.
matu public highways, free to the eElEzeus OF
sneh states and the United States, Without
any tax, duty or imross, aud this condlti5 "a
the state OF Illinois In solemn conycation
accepted
The faithful Observance Of this condition
Alone. would prevent her from ever closing
up frem tie uses Of navigation any OF the
Davigable waters within her boundaries. The
use zach and every part {she whole Of the
Illinois cannot lawfully author.x.
any one to hi up the channel 70 a. 10 cause
tho waters 10 cease 10. BE- navlzablr. under
apretense 10 make hA1bor and sab naodo
10 the soil 10 indlv!duass for any purp ose
! This she must retain as part Of her .oyc.
1elguty, and, as public servant and cxecu,
Tor. II che deems it necessary 10 make such
Improvements, ste must mike them As pub
private control and ownership.
We arc told in Muutord Y, Wrdwlll (6
Wai.. 436)-and this Is the case by wnlcn the
lawyers and the Legislature have assumed
that The staie owned the sota
IL sueh : manner n 70 dispose
nltted since the adoption OF the constitu-
ton haEe the same rights, sovereignty and
Jurisdiction as the original States posses.
within their respective borders, and as The
original States Is sovereign owned marine
league from their shores, the consequence sue
besrsay conclusion Is that the ownership o
, the submerged soil In question, w.en tht
State was Admitted into the Cuion, became
vested In The state ns absolute owuc. sub
iect only TO the paramount right Of naEiga.
l,on.
| Rnt the rourt dtd MT apc}de M, r.s +hs
question raised before 1t, as TO the mannel
IL which the state "as The owner, whether
1t was 4 proprietary right or soyere1sr
Hight. Il simply decided that, By the former
course Of decisions Of that Court, the Unttct
Siaies could not sell The soil covered by
! navi2ahie watera to individuals, although Al
the time ftne attempted grant, she was tht
ao*olute owner, and no question
was before them Is 10 Whethel
=. State could make such sale
when the ordinance Of 17s7 provided that tht
new States thoulo be admitted on an equal
footing n all re4pects with The ortzina
states. II meant not landed or terri.oria
Il e4naltJ. nnt pol1taeal equality. For u II
meant The former then q al tie oEicina