The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-12-06
MERELY A TRUST.
No State Can Aiienate Its
Rights.
LAND THAT THE PEOPLE OWN.
A Decision That Would Seem Par
ticularIy ApropOs to 0akland's
Waterfront Suit.
Special TO THE MoRNING CALI.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 5-The United
States Supreme Court to-day affirmed the
judgment of the United Stated Circuit
Court in the well-known Chicago iake-front
cases. The lower court decided in favor of
the city, holding that the Illinois Central
did not own riparian rights and could not
use the submerged lands along the lake
front, and enioning lis right of way. for
wharves, piers. etc. The controversy has
been going on for many years, and involved
property worth millions of dollars and
whaIfng privileges which are beyond esti-
mates.
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 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 a harbor The claim Of the
railroads arose from an act of the State
Legislature In 1869, granting the railroads
the right-Of-way over these submerged
lands to its depot Under this the road
claimed title Justice Harlan Of the Cir
cult Court, from whose judgment the road
appealed. confirmed the title of the COM
pany to the lands occupied and reclaimed,
but denied its right TO the submerged lands
In front of its right-of-way. The Supreme
Court mOdifes this decision, ordering an in
yestigation as to certain piers which the
road has built, TO determine whether they
ar in navlgable waters. 1t finds the title
to these lands in the State of Illinois. The
opinion was cOncurred in by Justices Field,
Harlan, Lamar and Brewer. justices
Brown, Gr..y and Shiras disSenied. Chief
Lf,ll DT.s
not take part, being interested in the
decision.
The opinion of Justice Field on this case
IS one of great importance. aside even from
the value of the property in controversy.
To considerable extent it lays down new
laws. The con trolling spirit of the decision
Is the sovereignty of the people over even
their own legislatures The opinion is
very long and elaborate.
After the points mentioned above Il come.
down 10 the chief question in the case, viz,
the right of the Illinois Central Company to
take for its own use the submerged lands
extending into Lake Michigan from the
shore TO the line OF the road. The court
brushed aside the technical points made as
TO the granting act of 1869, and squarely
meeting the proposition that by this act tie
legislature exceeded its authority, says that
the States title TO the lands under the
navigable waters of Lake Michigan is diff
feTent in character from from which the State
holds to its lands intended for sale. 1t is a
title held in trust for the people OF the
State, that they may enjoy the navigation of
the waters, carry on commerce over them,
and have the liberty of fishing therein, free
from the obstruction or interference Of
private parties. The State can no more
abdicate its trust over property in which The
whole people are interested, like navigable
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 govern
ment and the preservation Of peace. In
the administration OF government the use
of such powers may for limited period be
delegated to municipality or some other
body, but there always remains with the
State the right to revoke those powers and
exercise them in more direct manner, and
one more conformRble to its wishes. So
with trusts connected with public property
of special character. like lands under nav
igable waters. They cannot be placed en-
tirely beyond the discretion and control of
the State
The hsrbor of Chicago is of immense
value to the people of the State uf illinois
constantly increasing commerce, and the
Idea that its Legislature can deprive the
State Of control over its bed and waters,
! and place the same in the hands OF private
corporation created for different purposes,
one limited to the transportation of passen-
gers and freight between distant points and
the city of Chicago, is a proposition that
cannot be defended. The area Of the 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 il not quite equal
10 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 conceivable that the Legisla-
ture can divest the State Of the control over
the management of this harbor and vest it
absolutely In a private corporation.
Any grant of this kind is necessarily rev.
ocable, and the exercise of the trust by
which the property is held by the State can
be resumed at any time.
The opinion also aflirms the decree of the
lower court as respects the cty's claim 10
ownership of streets, alleys and other pub
lie grounds On the reclaimed lands.
Justice Shiras, in an oral dissent, said
that In his opinion the grant of the State to
the Illinois Central Railway Company was
valid grant, which constituted a contract
between the railway and the State, and one
which could not be taken away by a subse-
quent arbitrary act. The Legislature of the
State could regulate the use of the riparian
waters by the railway company to protect
the public interests.
The effects OF the decision were more
directly against the railway company than
the decisions of Justice Harlan and Judge
Blodgett In the Circuit Court. for it makes
possible the loss By the company of some OF
the pier property it now occupies