Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1892-12-08
BELONGS TO CHICAGO
Illinois Central Read Loses chi,
ing $780, OO,OOo Nv

1kIInOAb AonCfaI hCRI Loses Gr;,
ing $4,000 900. '~''i
WASHINGTON, D. G., Dec < j,
United States supreme court to.a.r
firmed the judgment ofthe circpit ~,
in the well-known Chicago Lake WV w.
cases. The lower court decided ~
vor of the local authorities and ~
that the Illinois Central Railroad ~
pany did not have q right to uso ~,
submerged lands along the lake t,'
for wharves, piers, etc.
The case arose over suits betwearA
Illinois Central Railroad Comnsnv. ~
the people Of the state of Illinois !.
city of Chicago and the United SI..
involving title to submerged laS
along about one and tour-htth miiSs
the water front of the most yaInab
part of the harbor of Chicaro "
value of the property in itIYsfu
being estimated at from ST 200 ON ~
cording to the figures given in cont
Counsel Jewett> of the Illinois Cept,
to $40, 100000, the largest estimate mad.
About l ,O5O acres were in dispute.
BY virtue Of an act of the lllinoisIo,
islature passed in 1869, when the citv
Chicago was small town, and its pro,
posi- bilities were probably foreseen
no one, the Illinois Central RaiInS
Company was granted certain rights
the water front of Lake Michigan
Chicago for railway purposes, and
was claimed by the railroad compsr
the right also to the wafer front itself
Suit was brought on behalf of M
city of Chicago and the state of IIipas
to restrain the railway company from
encroaching on the water front, wh6
was claimed by the city and the state b
be public and not private properN
The case came up before the Unite
States circuit court and Justice Harlan
sitting as circuit judge, delivered 81
opinion, of which the genera
effect was to confirm the Illinois
Central in it's title TO ground along ths|
lake front, already occupied by it tu|
railroad purposes, and to land it hadN
claimed and to piers previously cree.
ed, but was against the railroad com
pany on the question of title ID
the submerged lands along tAe|
holding that this was public property
and that whatever rights had beel|
granted therein had been subsequent
repealed. The railroad company wa|
perpetually enioined from erecting thl
proposed piers IN, or filling with EARTH
any portion of the bed Of Lake Michl
gan as it now exists.
An appeal was taken to the United
States supreme court by the railroad
company, and the city of Chicago and
the state of Illinois also took appeal
from certain parts OF the decree.
The United States was made en- ID
voluntary party to the suit. 1t put
no appearance in the argument in couf|
Justice Field delivered the opinioni
the court. Justice Shiras, and poss6i
others, dissented. The order of Id
court directs q modification of the III
cree below. so far as relates to CERTAIN
piers heretofore constructed by Id
railroad company, the United Sad
supreme court directing that q judra|
investigation be made to determlE|
whether or not piers between TWettI
and Sixteenth streets are or are nd
within navigaDle waters. IF within DaI
igable waters, the railroad company
Invested of it's title to these piers.
The chief justice, having been d
counsel in the court below, and Juste|
Blatchford, being stakeholder in tle|
Illinois Central Railroad COMPANY
did not take any part in th'|
consideration or decision OF these cases
Justices Brown and Gray joined Jn'|
fico Sbiras in 1iGsa ntiOp
Chief Justice Fuller and Justl@|
Blatchford did not take part in the DEL
cision, and thus the city of Chicago
and the state of Illinois won the|
case by the narrow majority ola to
3. The four Justices in favor of thecIy|
are Justices Field, Harlan. Lamar and
Brewer.
Fatal Tan Hn41Sn EIlre