New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-10-15
THE LAKE FRONT CASES IN COURT.
ARGUMENT CLOSED AND THEY ARE TAKEN IN
DER CoNSrpEp ALTON

DER CONSIDERATIONS.
Washington Oct. l4.-Thc celebrated Chicago lake
froI' cases entered the third day o' their arsu-
ment In the United States supreme Court at noon
to-day. Argument was closed during the day. AT
to?ncy General Hunt :or the state Of Illinois closed
tie argument he BEGAN yesterday lie maintained
that the State Of Illinois did not have power TO make
an imperial grant OF the submerged land underlying
the harbor Of great city to a railroad corporaon' and
that any act purpOrtinS 10 make such grant was
void. The harbor OF Chicago public property and
could be granted to private corporation than
could the state House at Springfield. His las point
that whatever wharhni rights and franchises
NAV have passed by the act of le6a making grant
to the railroad. recalled by she repeal Of that
act. because hey supplementary and not
original privilege and the law created contract
protected bv the Federal constitution. lie contcndcd
therefore that the company had no igh, encroach
on the waterfront by building out immense piers.
slips and wharvcs = it proposes 10 do.
John y. Iewctt began the closing argument in The
case speaking In behalf Of the claims Of the railroad
company In opening Jcwct sought reduce the value
Of the grant I'm dispute NOminaly. he said there wa
nearly 100 involved. such grant OF land IN
the swamp, about Chicago, which by drainage could
he made available for sixteen story buildng,. would c
imperial. But this grant Of land under water
nine thirty feet deep. and any Improvements thereon
must be- OF a special character, with large water
allowances for sllp,. etc, that not more than one
half OF II could be- made into ground for railroad
The cost Of building piers and wharvcs out 10 th"
brcakwatcr would be- approximately s6O0oooo. ana
il was questionable whether they would be- worth that
cost The ac' Of 1859. he maintained. was not u
grant Of n mere right Of WAY. but vcNtinent oi
tltle absolute and ndcfcnsihlr. The rule. he In
sisted IS that a riparian owner In the absence "'
restrictive legislation either State or Nalonal ha'
right 10 the shore line With navgahl" waters
for the benefit Of itself and the pubNc
lie spent considerable time In discussing technical %
jcctIons 1a>ed BY Attorney General Hunt 10 the validity
,f the granting act owing informsiucS In its cnact
mcnt The principal objection, that Title was de-
ccptiyc he declared illfoundcd, for nobody was
deceived hv the title. and moreover. th" effect "i
,ho act would really bc to increase the har'or Ia
ciIie, Of Chicago. lie asserted that nobody hut t'
e,,,c had nnv right or interest In these submerged
Lands. that tho public was not injured In any way
hv tbc grant chat the state had made an absolute
cront IN fec and not mere right Of way or license.
and that the power to make IN" grant was N's'"'
clrJon .Icwctt controvcrcd the contention that the
city ~ chicago wa, tho owner OF IN" harhor ana
vrus hound 10 improve II and protect II from "'"'ru'
zion and therefore had the du'y and right oi lilnc
, iilI TO restrain the Illinois central hiHT"iu '"i1
plnv. . , oto.od aud tho .,ee
uo,, io the iu,ticcs for decision. IN" 'onT VIII ~
,n tho columbian celebration n"Nt TUESDAY. ana J,
4 rca ,onahly certain that decision VIII ."' u'i-N'n
si lo,- Two wcchs. and II NAV he delayed a. many
month, or even longer.