Los Angeles herald., 1892-12-06
CHICAGO'S LAKE FRONT.
AN IMPORTANT DECISION By TINE
SUPREME COURT.
The Title to Submerged Lands Vested in
the State as Against tho Claims
of the City and the Illinois
Central Road.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 5.-The United
States supreme court today affirmed the
Judgment of the United States circuit
court in the wellknown Chicago lase front
cases. The lower court decided in favor
of the city, holding that the Illinois
Central did not own the riparian rights,
and could not use the submerged lands
along the lake front, adjoining its right
of way, for wharves, piers, etc. The
controversy has been going on for many
years and involves property already
worth millions of dollsrs and wharfng
privileges which are beyond estimate.
The case arose over the rival claim of
the Illinois Central railroad and the
state OF Illinois, the city of Chicago and
the United States, to the title to the
submerged lands along about two miles
OF the lake shore, opposite the business
heart of Chicago, where the government
has spent large sums in the construction
of harbor. The claim of the railroad
arose from the act of the state legisla-
ture in 1869, granting the railroad the
right of way over these submerged lands
to its depot. Under this the road
claimed the title.
Justice Harlan of the circuit court,
from whose judgment the road appealed,
confirmed the title of the company to
the lands occupied and reclaimed, but
denied it's right to the submerged lands
in front of its right of way. The su-
preme court modified this decision, or
derlng an investigation as to certain
piers which the road has built, to de-
termine whether they are in navigable
water. 1t finds that the title to these
lands is in the state of Illinois.
The opinion is concurred in by JUS
tices Field, Harlan, Lamar, Brewer;
Justices Brown, Gray and Shiras dis
sented. Chief Justice Fuller and JUS
tice Blatchford did not take part, being
interested in the decision.
The opinion of Justice Field in this
case is one of great Importance, aside
from even the great value of the prop
extent it lays down new laws. The con-
trolling spirit of the decision is the SOW
ereignty OF the people over even their
own legislatures.
The opinion was very long and elsb-
above, it comes down to the chief ques-
tion in the case, viz The right of the
Illinois Central company to take for its
own use submerged lands extending
into Lake Michigan from the shore to
line. The court brushed aside the
technical criticisms made to the grant.
ing act OF 1869, and squarely meeting
the proposition that by this act
the legislature exceeded its au-
thority, says the states title
to the lands under the Davigable
waters of lake Michigan is different in
character from that which the state
holds its lands intended for sale. II is
a title held in trust for the people of the
state, that they may enjoy the naviga-
tion of the waters, carry on commerce
over them aud have the liberty of fish
ing there, in freedom from the obstruc-
ton or interference of private parties.
The state can no more abdicate its trust
over property in which the whole peo-
Pile are interested. like navigabe waters
and the soils under them, so as to leave
them entirely to the use and control of
private parties, than it can abdicate
its powers in the administration of gov
ernment and the preservation of peace.
In the administration of government,
the use OF such powers may, for linn
tied period, be delegated to a munich
pality or other body, but there always
remains with the state the right to re-
woke those powers ard exercise them in
a more direct manner, and one more
conformable to its wishes. So with the
trusts connected with public property of
q special character, like lands under
navigable waters, they cannot be placed
entirely beyond the discretion and con-
troll of the state.
The harbor of Chicago is Of immense
value to the people Of the state OF Illi-
nois in the facilities it affords to its vast
and constantly increasing commerce,
and the idea that it's legislature could
deprive the state of the control over
its bed and waters and place the
same in the hands of q private cor
poration, created for different purposes,
one limited to the transportation of pas
eengers and freight between distant
points and the city, is proposition that
cannot be defended. The area of sub.
merged lands in question is as large
as that embraced by all the
merchandise docks along the Thames
at London; much larger than
that included in the famous docks
and basins at Liverpool; twice that OF
the port of Marseilles, and nearly if not
quite equal to the pier area along the
water front of the city OF New York, and
the arrivals and clearings Of vessels at
the port exceed in number those OF
New York, and are equal to those
of New York and Boston
combined. 1t is hardly con.
ceivable that the legislature
can divest the control of the state over
the management of this harbor and vest
it absolutely in a private corporation.
Any grant of the kind ia necessarily
revocable and the exercise of the trust
by which the property was held by the
stats, can be resumed at any time.
Justice Shiras, in an oral dissent, said
in his opinion the grant of the state
to the Illinois Central Railway COM
pany was valid grant, which consti-
tuted contract between the railway
and state, and one which could not be
taken away by the subsequent arbitrary
act of the Legislature,