Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1892-12-09
United States Supreme Court
Says Chicago Owns Her
HarbOr.
The [. c. Railway Company Loses
Control of About S73,000,0O0
Worth Of Land.
Substance OF the Opinions Of
Justices Field and
Shiras.

| ASHIsGTnN. Dec 5.-Ihe United
states Supreme court to-day affirmed
the Judgment of the Circuit court in
| the we!l-known Chicago lake front
cases. The lower court decided In
favor Of the local authorities ana held
! that the Illinois Central did not
/ have Il right to use the subrn erDed
! lands along the lake front for wbaryes.
piers, etc.
| The property involved in the suit is
| valued by some ut SI3,UOOO0O and
| practically embraces the harbor Of
Chicago
Several years ago Justice Harlan, OF
the United States circuit court, gave Il
decision defining the absolute right Of
the Illinois Central company to the
| lake front. The decision WAS regarded
| as Il sort Of compromise, but the Illinois
Central took an appeal. As it was de
sired to have the case settled before
| tie opening of the worlds fair. the
city, through its lawyers, had the case
advanced on the supreme court docket.
The opinion of Justice Field on this
case is one OF great Importance, aside
erty III controversy
TO Il considerable extent it lays down
new laws. The controlling spirit of
the decision is the sovereignty Of the
people over even Their own legislatures.
As to til proposition that by this act
the legislature exceeded its authority
he says: The states title to lands
1, 7
Michigan is different i'll character from
that which the state holds to its land
intended for sale. 1t is Il 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
II 'rd from distractions or intcrfer-
encc by private parties. The state
cannot any more ;,bdicate its trust over
property in which the whole people
are Interested. like nayigable waters
and the soils under them. SO as to
leave them entirely in the use and
control Of private parties than it can
abdicatc its powers in the administI7,-
ton of government and TIE preserva-
ton of the peace. Lands under navi-
gable waters 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 IL
linoiS i'll the facilities it affords to lis
vast and constantly Increasing com
merce 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 Il private corporation. ere
atel for different purposes, one limited
to the transportation of passengers and
freight between distant points in the
city, is Il proposition that cannot be
defended.
The area of the submerged lands i'll
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 MarseiIles, and nearly, if not
quite, equal to the pier area along the
water front Of tn city Of New York,
and the arrivals and clearings of yes
sells at the port exceed the number OF
those of New York, and are equal to
those of New York and Boston COM
bined. 1t is hardly conceivable that 4
legislature can deveSt the control OF the
state over the management of this har-
Dor and vest it absolutely in private
corporation.
ANY grant of the kind is of necessity
revocable, and the exercise of the trust
by which the property is held by the
state can be resumed at any time"
The opinion also aftirms the decree of
the lower court as respects the clty's
claim to ownership Of streets, allies and
other public grounds on reclaimed lands.
Justice Shiras, in his oral dissent, said
that i'll his opinion the grant of the state
to the Illinois Central Railway com
pany was 4 valid grant, which constl-
tuted contract between the railway
and the state, and one which could not
be taken away by a subsequent arbi-
trary act of the legislature.
The effect of the decision is more
against the railway company than the
decision of Justice Harlan and Judge
Blodgett in the circuit court, for it
makes possible loss by the company
of some pier property it now occupies.