, 1890-02-20
THE Law ON TIDE LANDS.


The law relative to tide lands Is
laid down In Woods law Of. nuIs-
ances (second edition., page 53S,
recognized In the courts in all of
the states OF the Union as high
authority. 1t reads rs follows:
Mr. Angel In his work upon tide
waters, lays down the doctrine broadly,
that ii, we'll settled that riparian pro.
prietors can not be cut oil from tho water
against their consent by extraneous ad.
dition to their upland, and lie cites q
case in Pcnnsylvania and one In New
York in support OF this doctrine.
But tiis doctrine has no foundation,
either IN principle or upon authority, so
! far as tidal streams are concerned, or
frcsh-wnter streams, placed upon the
( same footing. The state IL the owner
absolutely OF the alveus OF the stream to
| hIgl.wgter mark, and as such owner
| may devote the stream, or any part
thereof to such purposes as IL sees iii, so
| long as II does not materially oostruct
navigation. Riparian owners as such,
upon this class Of streams, have no more
rights than any other member OF the pub
lie, either In the stream or any OF the
lands covered thereby. They can
not erect wharf thereon, or
use any portion OF tho alycus
Of the stream for any purpose whatever,
| except in the exercise OF the common
right OF navigation. They may cross
and rccross the same for tho purpose OF
approaching the sea, and so may any
other member OF the public. They may
use the waters Of the stream for ordin-
AIRY domestic purposes, and so may any
one else. The owner OF the bank has no
| jus priv atum orspocinl vusutruciuary In
terest ia the water. lie docs NOT for the
mere circumstance that lac is the owner
Of the bank acquire any special or par
ticular interest IN the stream. over any
other member OF the public, except that
greater convcnienccs than the public
generally. 10 him riparian ownership
brings no greater rights than those Incl
dent To the public, except that he can
approach the water more readily, and
over lands which the general public have
no right TO use for that purpose. But
this Is a mere convenience arising from
his ownership OF the lands adjacent TO
the ordinary high water mark, ana does
not prevent the state from depriving
him entirely OF this convenience, by IL
self making crections upon thc shore, or
authorizing the use OF the shore by 9TH
ers in such way as to deprive him OF
his conveniencc altogether, and the In
jury resulting TO him therefronl,
although greater than that sustained by
the rest OF the public, Is darnnuin abb
sque inj juria."
Innunerablc authorities might be
cited showing that the above
doctrine Is the law OF this country.
From tho foregoing II will be seen
that there Is no such thing rs vested
rlghtsin lands lying below the line
ofordlnary high tide.
The United States may have taken
steps to dispose Of certain fractions
fthe tide lands before Washington
became a state. The constitution
recognizes the right of such claim
ants to perfect title to their claims
in the courts, which is tho only
shadow OF claim Of vested rights
that can exist, aud the constitution
expressly states that such claims ia
vested rights must be asserted In the
courts of the state.
DO the members OF tho Legislature
intend to violate the constitution
which they are sworn to support,
and recognize vested rights which
are not to be asserted In the courts?
Again, the constitution, article /,
section Il, states that "no law shall
be passed granting TO any citizen,
class of citizens, or corporation other
than municipal, privileges or Inn
munltles which upon the same terms
shall not equally belong TO all citi-
zan = mr. cornnratinna "