The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-12-06
IT rs THE PEOPLES.
Legislatures Cannot Give Away
Navigable Water.
THE CHICAGO LAKE FRONT CASE.
Decided by the United States Supreme
MESA Far-Reacking Conclusion.

WASHINGTON CITY, Dee. 5-The United States
supreme court today affirmed the judgment OF
the United States circuit court in the we'll
known Chicago lake front cases. The lower
court decided in favor of the city, holding tiifst
the Illinois Central did not hold riparian rights
and could not use the submerged lands along
the lake front, adjoining It's risht-of-yay, for
wharves aud piers The controversy has been
going on for many years and involves property
already worth millions of dollars and wharfng
privileges which are beyond estimate. The
case over rival claims of the Illinois Gen.
trail 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 shore
opposite the business heart of Chicago, whore
the government has spent large sums IN the con-
ssruction of harbor. The claim Of the rail
road arose from an act OF the state legislature
IN 1869, granting the railroad right-of-way over
these submerged lands to its depot Under this
act the road claimed 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 the right 20 the sub
merged lands in front of itg right-of-way. The
supreme court modifes this decision. ordering
A. investigation to certain piers which the
road has built TO determine whether they ere in
navisabic waters 1t finds the title TO these
lands is in the state ST Illinois. The opinion ia
concurred in by Justices Field. Harlan, Lamar
and Brewer. Justices Brown, Gray and shiras
dissent. Chief Justice Fuller snd Justice
BIanchford did not take part. being interested
in the decision.
The opinion OF Justice Field in this case is
one OF great importance, aside even from the
great value of the property in controversy. To
considerable extent il lays down new laws
The controlling spirit Of the decision is the
ereignity OF the people over the acts OF their
own legislatures. The opinion was very long
and elaborate. After the points mentioned
above 1t comes down 10 the chief question 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 line. The court brushed aside technical
CRITICISMS made to the granting act Of 1869, and
By squarely meeting the proposition that by
this act the legislature exceeded it's authority
says the states title TO the lands under the nav
igsbie waters of Lake Michigan is di fferent in
character from that by which the state holds its
lands intended for sale. Ii is title held
In trust for the people of the state that they may
by navigation of the waters, carry on commerce
over them and have the liberty of fishing therein
freed from the obstruction or interference OF
private parties. The state can no more abdicate
Its trust over property in which the whole peo-
pie are interested, like navigabie waters and the
soil under them, 10 leave them entirely to
the use and control of private parties, than 1t
eau abdicate its powers in the administration of
the government and preservation of the peace
In the administration OF government the use of
such powers may for limited period be dele
gated to municipalities or other bodies but
there always remains with the state the right TO
revoke those powers and exercise them in n
more direct manner and one more conformable
TO Its wishes. So with trusts connected with
public property OF special character, like lands
under navigable waters. They cannot be placed
entirely beyond the discretion and control of
the state.
The harbor of Chicago is of immense value to
the people OF the state of Illinois in the facili-
ties IL affords to It's vast and constantly increas
Ing commerce, and the idea that it's legislature
can deprive the state OF control over its bed and
waters and place the same in the hands of pri-
vate corporations created for different purposes.
one limited to the transportation OF passengers
and freight between distant points aud the city
II proposition that cannot be defended. The
area OF the submerged lands In question is as
large - 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 ciearingS OF vessels at Chicago are equal to
those OF New York and Boston combined Ii ia
hardly conceivable that the legislature can
divert the control of the state over the manage
ment of this harbor and vest 1t absolutely in
PtNaeo OofpoIadon- Any grant or THIS kind is
necessarily revocable, aud the exercise of the
trust by which the property is held by the state
can be resumed at any time.
The effect of the decision is more against the
railroad company than the decision of Justice
Harlan and Judge Blodgott In the circuit court,
for 1t makes possible the loss by the company of
some pier property II now occupies The opin-
ion also favors the decree OF the lower court as
respects the eity's claim to ownership of streets,
alleys and other public grounds on reclai med
lands. Justice shiras In oral dissent said in his
opinion the grant by the state to the Illinois
Central railway was valid grant, which con.
stituted a contract between the railway and the
kiate, aud one which could not be taken away
by subsequent arbitrary act of the legislature
The state should regulate the use of riparian
waters by the railway companies so as to pro-
tect the public interests.
The Eugfneers and Dep~w