The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1889-10-17

miise.i hare tie ssue rixhss sovereignty saa
.afisilefioE In sha; e<nah a. the original pos
sssssa within their respective border
IN barny Va heoknk, - T. <, xss. TIE court
II Ignores and Hsvf~grle wasersl properly
o~s9h = 70 the states b. their inhersnf syver-
elzHsy and the United States has wisely stS
stained from extending. III IL eoa1 extend. e.
water
In county OF -. Clair rs. Livingstone. q VA
iace, %, the eosrt ssys "By the American rexo-
sEtion the people o. each state In their sovereign
ehAsseteT acquired the absolute right &c 81 taei-
nsVyabse waters aud the soil under them; tie
SHORES VI navizabse waters and the soil under
ssem were Dot granted by the constitution 90
,ne United states. bss. reserved 20 the states
ttspectsTely and req states have TIE sane
rights OF sovereignty aud Jurisdiction ever this
subject IS the original ores"
IN Pollard W. Hagar, Howard, 10 The eou-t
ssys This right Of eminent domain over tie
faores and sse solIs ErdeE nsFigable waters for
si HiHnicIpsl parposes, DC onss exclusively 20
tos STATS within their respective territorial
imsisdictior. aud they and they only. have tue
constitutional power To exercise IN To give tho
Cu4fss states the right 10 transfer TO a citizen
TIC Title 20 the thores and the soils under the
naF.gasle waters would Be placing IN their
hanas weapon which might be welded great
~ 70 TIE injury Of state sovereignty and deprive
the states OF the power 20 exercise A numerous
ana important class of police EowerS" NJ
hrnnsd ir. woodruff ". Mining Co, Is Federal
geis5-asr rs.
In Withers "a Buckley. ~ Howard. s. the
court says. Clearly. congress eoniG cxses Of
ne Bss state the surrender Of no atSri butte in.
herent In her character as q soyerEfzn indie
pendsn state, or Indispensable 10 keF equality
WIN her sister states. nccesrarily implied and
guaranteed by the very nature 81 tne federal
eofapae. obviously. and ], may be said prirn-
afll5. anopg the insifeats % that equality il
the right 80 make improvements IL the rs~ers,
/ waier~courses and highways sltua, "a within the
stsse see Noble W. Euanuat Howard 50
IN Martin ga Wa16eli, - Peters IA the court
+ ~ constituting the kings grant % sne Duke OF
fos< says: This opinion IS confirmed b. re
ierrihg 70 similar grants for Other tracts OF oois
iFg tifct this continent, made about the same
/ period Of time. Various other charters fof large
'e rsfories on the Atlantic eosst we're granted by
inherent noDsgchs 81 the stuart Gyaassy 10 s.st
fsFent persons tor the purposes OF settlement
/ and colonization, ia which the power OF govern
I meat were unsted with tie gfaat OF territory
some OF these charters very nearly resemble 10
/ every respect the one now in controversy AID
neIss OF them, II IS believed differed materially
IRON u IN the terms tn which the bays, rivers
aud arms OF the sea sui the soils uud.r them.
/ were conveyed To the grantees yet in no one OF
these colonies has the soii under i,s aavigahle
i wafefs and the rights OF fishing for shell FISH.
floating fish. been reversed by the
letters pafcnt from the powers OF govern
iaent In all 81 them. from the time of
Toe settlement to tho present day. The previous
habits snd nsaEes OF the colonies have boen re
specte'i, sna they have been accustomed 80 en-
+ Joy IN common the benefit and advantages Of
the nayigable waters for the alae purposes aud
4 Ia the same extent that they have been used
and enjoyed for centuries in England, Indeed
/ X cpnd not well have been otherwise. for The
nea who first formed the English settlements
"a
many hsr1Saips that unayoidsbly attended
their emigration to che new world and to people
the banks OF lis bays and rivers tx the land uu-
der the water al lheir very doors was liable 10
immediate appropriation by another private
property and tie settler upon the fast land
thereby excluded from its enjoyment and IN
able TO take shell ish from its bottom or fasien
there stake,yor even 6athe In its waters with
out becoming tresspssscr upon the nights OF
/ Others"
4 In Chaplin vs.. Bourne. 5 California &c the
court says ST ftitle 10 water property belonged
to the United states who held IL In trust for any
new state that might be erected out Of said terri
tory and passed 90 the state OF California on her
| admission by virtue of her sovereignty"
| In Human ". Warner, Oregon, al. the
| court says; Tide lAnds-ihnsc that arr an.
covered and covered by the ebb and How Of the
| sss-belon2 To the state OF orr gon BY virtue of
its sovereignty This doctrine Is the clear result
of the principle announced in all the eases from,
| Poiisrds Lessees W. Hagan, How. CO. TO
Barney rs. keakak, Otto, ga
But IL Is cuntended that this sovereignty did
not attach until the state was admitted into the
Union. This IL true. but IL Is also equally true
! that the United states government has no con
! stiiutionsl or statutory authority 10 ~ act to
| wards q territory. or dispose of the lands
| Within a territory. as to make IL impossible 10
| admit such territory upon All equal footing with
the other states OF the Onion. Ia all matters
which touch the sovereignty, the general gov
eminent 10. la the very mature OF our system,
simply protector thereof until the territory
SHINES the saipier power Of a state, and becomes
thereby enabled 10 assert ard protect It's own
! sovereignty. In this case the patent is
sued b. the United states ia lsjo. Oregon did
| not become n state Hnul 1852 The patent was
declared void for the reason quoted supra
la steam Ensine Co ys. steamship Co. II l.
| $50. the court says: and such / think is not
| the meaning of the courts. they have often
! enough held that ihe property OF ihs kiag, and
with US of the state Is trust for the public.
| power 20 control aud regulate "a subserye the
! good OF the public, and not private sro2erty
says Kent, the king OF England, aud here the
| state, is trustee for The public
In Haght Va. Keokuk ia Ia, 2i9l the court
| says: 1T has been said that the government
| cannot convey the land between high and low
| water mark ON the public or navigable rivers
! Although no state may exist IL the time
Of such grant, as In this case, yet grants and
construed rs having view to the future soy
/ ereigDiy which may or will arise, ana not
To impair its rights when arisen. IL is our opin
1 ion, therefore. this: the complafnants right Of
soil Is 20 be limited 30 the line high water marx
I established In the case Of McMapus Car
{ michae ell
/ In Attorney General vs. the city OF Eau Claire.
/ ga Wis, ti7l the court SAYS Public rivers are
I highways by no local suthority- They
are In charge Of the state. ard the state cannot
I ahde8ie its charge OF them. That charge is
duty 20 the Federal government. snd
trest for the whole people, NOT of the state oaly
but OF The several states"
In Slate ~. sargent - Conn. 3T2, the court
i save "Ry The common law IL stood long hs-
/ fofe the coming OF our ancestors to this cpun-
try. aud tie settlement Of he COLONY a. New
/ Nsyen, the King rs Pardas gafrtGs held the soil
J under the sea between high aud low water
MARI: hs held /; NOT for his own benefit bui for
his subjects a. large aud for the subjects OF ell
states 81 peace with him he held e ia trust Tor
( public uses
4 Ia Seahgvy - field. ~ Alilster. 5 the court
: Saws That this state California on her scccs
sion "a ta}s Cunfeslerscy, Became suhrogatetl "a
al tho r.gAts political aut territorial In 'hs
/ water property, VIII "a had been he. efofore in
thc rn.tcd States government after thc treaty o'
/ Guadalupe Hldaiso."
( Ia BiySsli rs. HcnSaaw. sawyer 51p ia,
/ court sass "By the admission Of Csliioruis
/ into thc uuion as became by virtue 81 rs sover
/ eighty entitled Is az thc lands below ordinary
/ IS Hsesu IL How FL sud other CASES" sst