The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-01-24

contrary, we recognize the correctness of the
doctrine as stated and affirmed" And in POI
tomac Steamboat Company tsupra) cites this
ease and y ates case ON the same point. to-wit:
night of access Second, that either by general
legislation or immemorial usage, in many states
the lot owner either sea or arm
of sea, possesses rights ~ wharf TO tho
point of navigable water. Third, absence Of
legislation in common law states, common law
as 10 wharf privileges. Therefore the rule by
which the right 10 wharf exists is-A. local i'm
memorial usage; b, regulation or statute; c,
common law. The title wss not derived from
the United States nor was IL public land of tho
United states, but the predecessors TO the com
plant in the Weber case acquired title after
admission of California and the passage of an
act known as the tide land act. The complain
ant had not the rights of riparian proprietor
say the court; she holds as his predecessor took
the premises free from any such appendant
right; and the supreme court then proceeds
tons, that statute having baen invoked against
the state.
The Yates case on doctrine of rights of access,
il win be noticed, is distinctly reaffrmed in
Weber case in 1872 and Potomac steamboat
case in 1883. These authorities, both English
and American recognize the rights claimed by
the httoral owners. (The three remaining
United states authorities will be hereafter re-
viewed). The state, however. denies these
rights, and in support of such denial cites Wood
on Nuisance, section 46S, together with the
thorities that author relies upon. tGould vs. X.
K. Co., n. V, 522; stevens VS.. r. II. Co, 81 N.
J. L., So; Tonllin VS.. r. X. Co, 81 Iowa, 1861
While not cited either at argument or in test
books, another authority supports Mr.. Woods
t w ~ ~ &c 80. , W. .cs - II Aea5lEsl -
state relies on r. K. Co. vs.. Renwick, 102 U. s,
tut "a n 90 M 81 + IA .s4. HohoSer
VS.. K. K. Co.. IA U. 5. ESQ, Bk 81 l.. Ed. 5as.
While Mr. Wood in his work on Nuisance"
ne aIso IN ,h r .e tbat M g
the most eminent text writers OF his day., in his
M n upoii rue wars, pase III lays
NV .ne uoe.lIlc ~ "! elat ~ y " i sesIIeu
.is's pe tts on ifNiA
VIZ MsSs t,ei! evii9ens ~ any ~
Jus 1ieieleu ~ .i.sii urtauui psst SCENES tnS
aoetEine anu says u mas no foundation, either ia
pllaeIpie OF upon sutnorlS. 20 iaI as unal
lsi.i ~ are as am seA ~ ne hols uu
ar -, ahs ny - coili.i ~,
upVh Ahs queeuvu., he vn9 coisIlst - N tiio
ss .t Oh NeW iorh, NV Jsfsey ana west sr-
si az asnllist every "'iler seise III lne ehlon
~ % ;t .as s,s Q, pWs, my spre'e S2ai
os .iIe olitep otates anu tue hlbhsst lnulSiA
'ta I, =, % =, Eiielanu. - .
-, me 1ot,la case aeclnea IN oetebef, ~, Us
.h NE. anu 70 :, tssicc 'ue on loioWtu py
tne DINERS; II IS hased on lansing w smith,
s.n MehaeiI' =, anu ihNoived the question OF
t .he s,ass - ueS' MN eS nay isaeie waters
ehefelh. NJ. even "a lansing VS.;
SllIsh :, THIS iiEnt 10 tsS maze ~ suated
py the chanceiior exists, provided the legisla-
tufe don INTERFERE WITH me vested rights
whlcn nave been granted 10 individuals, say
tne NeW OK supreme court ~ lsS1, when
,PeaAins o. ING .t9'lu case, story vs. New orS
hieNatcu hal'roao, Nth New fotk, TOO Anu
Wheh me supreme oour. OF that ttate again IN
49, refer 20 me ,'otd ease lney say II was an
to the obligation making compensation for the
propeII,s .aStn, anu that the propefty there
sAeh ssaouia easel ler = puniic use was acquired
lo a. the ss' VINO Was l.s iaei,l oWhef, n9t
tlie acquired from me United states; lsmith
3, .is Ns- Wy VI hocnt SUI, - Ne" ao.A, ~,
II lshaets ea.sr SAL notiar :, i,s.,.o a,.d
Ileht 70 sy THAT me riparian owner
on naflgaple water mas no eqhiiles py
ishSoh ?, t ,,l,.' ownetsnp y aoetrins
when IN the learned court OF neighooring
s.a n was sleM , WIN e"nsteritlon !'lty
ecrine Which Is sep,, S ds NV tb sg
ialion oi our own slate sna Whenever
me sl,e mas grantea 20 .ne Guy on New ORE eS
,stIor anus unuer Watei, ~ hss accompanied
1he gran. Win perinissIon Win pfe,,emptlon
I,gnts 90 the aalaesnt owner. ~ y ialc 70 say
t ,,,,s as ue;n d"ie "a puiS kdnse ana Win
olt any eluts ~ tne owner. ihere was reason
ior 9oing it ana lustice. 1ranung as mas peen
helo tnat the riparian owner mas no legal or
edaiiaple tignis eiotceaple ~ s.en against me
Pupie rights, ianslns vs. .n,ilh, 1ouiu ". hair
,uhu conn ~ ~ true that out OF
ms. MS sl.mauon upon .ne pann anu 'ne Sontn.anos
uaiis,ase auo in3isinu'ii injury Mtitn cut On ny
pupnc ase Tue hature OF THESE privileges
anu cons ~ me when laus lie al the
mercy OF the sovereign anu may pe TAKEN
Wisnout ooinpe ns.9 not"Itns,anulnk ths
prisaie inludy li1ictea are eafeiuny descriDed
anu shetsnSu III w uisssing opIhion IN !hs
cass ol 1ou,1 1aiay or ., New fork Ns. dart GU
a., ~ NV 1oIA, soo anu TO- fow laininar
,ap i aais uakS ~ - ne' neaiIy one
tca. iang uags III risn.uonses w. lyon, When
uPrh piInic ille .ue ilsns % aocsss 10 uiscusseu
as neIsInoeioIe quosu. ls no. tne pfeshnPtion
- -. - 49, -
@ nav -. n ,oss VIZ iennonkel ces@
~ ~ Nosenpcr inso 'o SAINT cotIt sas
ihttoral pIoprletois, lihe paTiaIi pfopflctof'
ase tLsn 70 Wy watel lronlasc pvlonglls pS
naaue W sn ne iahu' ailnousal .e ohy pracelc
=. ,ic VI may ~ .s auces
theIepy aloIueu MIN ny. 70 ehe water TOT .he RuI
pose . OF ilsing tne rgni Oh nasigatlon. rms
IiEis ~ s oHis anu eAlsts oy sieue au III r.
rpece " i,,n s,P' tlt,ns tno
- 81 vase' A'siiy w. Noitnn'
loo w" .ee- HA, III, fot, anu ~ -
t so,, ~ enss Va "v,I 1890 ine s;,no
.ile sue.l y, avcIenUn uJonk ~ ruo upIa.uu
o"Ici 90 .n"t nc VIII hot w shus W, iioui Mh'eE
anu taus couNelt II lhto an nlailu oMhes
,thSi tlIali = o"ne.- tStctis W. III! u
btooAiy ~ w - ~, ~, 90 IN 9nue' 49, tne
eouI. ~ passllg upon lne Iisnts % ripar M.
~ ~ a,oue ul1irI tne aams % lns
statc edh purchase tne sn9lel !. Wa tontt.nueu
nc uplaliu wv ianu was NOT aulaeTns "
ny "5osns v. She Itet pstssls s. III
hIsti ,Nals.oau Company was pultt oetNsfh ti.s
upldn.u anu suSn ha.sis, tas s"uit shg.
lne tllne OF the ehactineht oi Lhese Jaws, tne
sAPiesS!ou piopIle.ors OF aeJaee1e ia.u re
ieileu ~ uietlncl Stss VI s1s a n
.heiuucd al' mnuhs uPahes W. 91 ,a ~
.ne shores ol t'le nav leaOie rvefs hiu liz. Nj
such uae ieauy dcctes 70 INT "a.eis otef anu
rom tnsir own iaiias ...r;.llnl.c. nnnnlhs
ano aunoiIf y, tle No,i,i'ii.sipnsis 70 n'sAs
grants " upiahu PIopfietoI' tns sta.e
Iecosnizes tne Ilgh, 81 .he tannoMnef 20 nave
access from ms own land 70 lhe water. r,
Ahu isiStiiis :" WY s'uulu tarN say. Nv
court aia NOT Mnen tnas case was before ~, dc-
iS tIsls ,uS
itd d gram itoHi lhe stat. NotMl.nsntnnihy
tue Iadfoad company bss p"t"eeu ths uPiaru
anu ais i,aNkssoie NH.eI .pc couIt nesi tut tiis
upahu owner was a riparian pIvtIsttoI. ss huch
WIS entieed 70 Access 20 ths Mateas, am tnele
IoIs Was enlltieu 70 purchase T nd t,e .ahu
commission ,tet lftanishy " 1saiiiodu Soiii-