Lewiston teller. [volume] (Lewiston, North Idaho) 1878-1900, 1885-11-05

CITY FRONT CLAIMED,

A man named Roark, who has long
been known in this vicinity, has, from
some cause, been induced to think, since
the decision of Judge Buck, decidin.
that Snake river il navigahle stream in
the eyes of the law, that the city can hold
or control no land outside of the surveyed
limits of the town, that he can take up,
as s1uatters right, the land including
the gravel bar west OF this city, and hold
the same, adversely to the city or any
other persons who claim under riparian
rights, by virtue Of the ownership of the
land on the bank and inside of the gov
errment survey Of the land patented to
the city, and has posted notices of his
claim to the frontage extending from
Brearley's mill around and up the Clear
water as far as Silcott's ferry, embracing
about two thousand four hundred feet by
two hundred feet in width, OF the city
front, thus laying claim to the gravel
bars in front of the city of linear extent
of two thousand four hundred feet, or
more H. claims this for mining and
wharing purposes, and as he says, is to
have it surveyed and subsequently, apply
to the U. s. government for title under
U. s. laws regulating titles of overaowed
lands. This movement has produced no
little sensation among the residents Of
the city aud even the city authorities,
who, as we have been informed have
warned him off the premises claimed.
and, as We learn, intend to resist his oc-
cupancy by forcible means if found nee
cessary. 1t is not for us to say that he
is trespasser against the city, by enter
ing his claim to this property, under the
opinion that both the Snake and Clear
water rivers are in law navisable. There
may be some difficulty in coming to
satisfactory adjustment of this new claim.
1t shows that the rights to property
on the frontage should have been settled
years ago in the minds Of our citizens,
before the prospective value of vacant
property doomed up to such proportions
as to excite the cupidity of every man
who thinks he can see a hook upon
which he can hang claim Of right. So
far as the frontage on Snake river is con-
cerned, we had always supposed that the
doctrine Of riparian rights obtained, and
that the parties who owned to this me-
andering line of the government survey,
owned also to the centre Of the chanel OF
the river, without the right to obs:ruct
navigation We had always supposed
that 10 the light of the law, the Snake
river was not navigable stream, so as to
destroy the doctrine Of riparian rights,
aud even since Judge Bucks decision it
is not clear to US that our suspicious were
not right. We have seen no law of con-
gress which takes the case out Of the
class of cases where riparian ownership
prevails. 1t seems to be the disposition
Of some to think that all the city has to
do is charge cIa.ed brain upon the new
claimant to settle the difficulty. We
don't think that is the way to settle such
questions. Ifthe man has rights it is
an easy matter to determine the fact, and
If the city possesses jurisdiction over the
land on the frontage outside Of tue sur
veg, except for government purposes, let
the fact be made clear, and stop conten-
ton.