The daily intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Territory [i.e. Wash.]) 1876-1881, 1878-08-26

Monday, August 20, 1878
A SAN FRANCISCO TIDE
LAND DECISION.

the L. 5. Supreme Court, now on the
S.und) has recently given q decision In
the L. S. Circuit Court in San Francis
CO. in q case affecting proprietary rights
on water frontages. which is of interest
to citizens Of Puget Sound, as the same
kind Of questions are apt to come up
relative to titles in the case Of proper
ties abeying on the tide waters here.
The case was that of Trip vs..
Spring. wherein plaintiff sued for pos
session Of a block Of land no. go
bounded by Mission. Howard, Seven
teenth and Eighteenth streets, situated
on q winding estuary Of the bay known
as Mission Creek. The ground of the
suit was conveyance latter the land
was filled up and built on from the
State by the Board of Tide Land Com
missioners, based on the L. s. common
law rule, or rather::Supreme Court rul-
iDgs, that the title to all lands over
. which the tide naturally flowed inheres
TO the State, and is held under the ju
risdicti0n of the general government
in the case of Territories, in trust for
the benefit of the future State on her
admission, at which time the sovereign
title of the State vests. and the jurisdic
ton changes.
The claim, however. was overruled
by the court. the chain of reasoning in
the decision being a prior conveyance
(, defendant OF the premises by the
city. the same having been included
within the limits of grant made by
the Mexican Government to the
Pueblo of San Francisco, to all
the franchise and interests of
which. tho city succeeded. and the
subsequent jurisdiction Of the State of
California and the United States being
acquired subject to the saving Of all
chartered rights, grants, etc, under the
Mexican sovereignty, the same being
expressly reserved and protected by
treaty stipulation, and the city's title
therefore being recognized as valid and
unassailab'e as against the State.
The Judge defined the title of the
State as follows:
The general doctrine that the State
holds the title to SOILS under tide wa
tiers within her limits is unquestioned.
Her proprietary rights to such soils has
been asserted IN numerous instances.
both by the State and Federal Courts.
1t was expressly recognized by the Su-
prsne Court of the United States. IN the
recent case of Weber VS.. The Harbor
Commissioners. which originated in
this city. Us Wall. 65). Though the
United States acquired tho title to the
lands under tide waters from Mexico
equally with the title to the
uplands. they held it in trust
tor the future State. The
ownership and consequent right
of disposition passed TO her upon her
admission into the Union. But this
ownership could, OF course. only devolve
upon her where it had not been previ-
ously granted to other parties by the
former sovereign. or subjected to trusts
which would require its disposition in
some other way. II it were acquired
by the United States charged with any
trust, the disposition of it in the execu-
ton OF that trust, will override any
claim of the State.
That Pueblo of some kind existed
at the site of the present city of San
Francisco upon the cession of the
country from Mexico; that such Pueblo
possessed proprietary rights in certain
lands, and that the city succeeded TO
such rights. arc no longer open ques.
tions for discussion or judicial examina-
ton. The obligation which the United
States assumed by the treaty with
Mexico. was to protect al rights of
property acquired undsre<hs laws of
that country. The property rights of
Pueblos. equally with thoss of individ.
uals. were entitled to projection. aud
in the Legislation OF Congress provision
was made for their investigation and
confirmation. The right and power of
the government in the execution of its
treaty obligations TO protect the claim
Ut the city of San Francisco, as success
sor Of the Pueblo. were superior to any
subsequently, acquired rights or claims
of the State or Of individuals.
The moral of the Supreme Court doc
trine referred TO in this decision seem.
to be one Of caueat empter "let the
buyer beware inasmuch as the hold.
ers of betterments on . water from,
below high-tide mark can convey nc
title to the same nor purchasers OBJ.
tain any, except through a grant from
the State after admission first obtained
We know that an erroneous impress
sion in regard to this matter has pre-
vailed on the Sound to some extent in
the past, owing 10 . confounding of the
law IN the case of tide water frontage
with the precedent that prevails in the
case OF fresh water streams. of recog-
mixing the proprietary right of riparian
owners to the soil 10 the middle of the
channel, barring only the rights of the
public to unimpeded navigation.
A knowledge of this state of facts
may prevent many an uninten,ioual
fraud on the part of innocent settlers,
and the inconvenience of having TO re-
purchase properties after having once
paid for shem. on the part of innocen,