The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-12-15
HARBOR LINE CASE.
Bearing of the Chicago Lake
Front Decision on 1t,
VITAL POINTS OF DIFFERENCE.
Ex-Gov. semple Points Out That Ri
parian Rights Are Barred by she
Washington Constitution.

Hon. Eugene semple, the member OF the har-
Dor line commission in charge of the Seattle
harDor is satisfied, after reading the full. text of
the decision of the United States supreme court
in the Chicago lake front cases, that the de-
eision in the Seattle cases, now in its hands.
will be in favor of the harbor line com mission.
He said yesterday on the subject:
The decision recently handed down BY the
supreme court OF the United States in ,he Chi
cago lake front cases does not announce any
new principle, but merely reiterates doctrine
which Is OF the essence OF our form of govern
meut, and at which that great tribuual has
never hesitated. The court says in these cases:
at ia the settled law of this country tsiat the
ownership of and dominion and sovereignty over
lands covered by tide waters, within the limits
OF the several states, belong TO the respective
states within which they are found, With the
consequent right TO use or dispose OF any por
ton thereof, when that can be done without sub
stantial impairment of the interest OF the public
in the waters. and subject always to the para
mount right of congress to control their naviga-
ton SO far as may be necessary for the feguia-
ton OF commerce with foreign nations and
among the states. This doctrine has often been
announced by this court, and 10 not questioned
by the counsel of any oil the parties"
The court not only reiterates this wellsettled
doctrine, but also the fundamental Political
principle upon which it rests lQuote from the
opinion:
The state OF Illinois was admitted into the
Union in ISIS on an equal footing wsth the
original states in all respects. such Yves one OF
the conditions of the cession from Virginia of
the territory northwest OF the Ohio river, out OF
which the state was formed. But the equality
prescribed would have existed if it had not been
thus stipulated There can be no distinction
between the several states OF the Union in the
character OF the jurisdiction, sovereignty. and
dominion which they may possess and exercise
over persons and subjects within their respective
limits" The original thirteen states, when they
had gained their independence from the mother
country, possessed, each and every one of them,
all the attributes OF sovereignty, and they
possess those attributes today except az sur
rendered in the constitution of tho United
mitted since the formation OF the Fed
eral government, being on perfect equality
with the original members OF the Union. pos
eesses the same rights, amongst them the sover-
eighty over the beds and shores of its navfgable-
waters, with limitations as stated above This
is the even tenor of the decisions of the higher
courts in the premises. But in the opinion re-
Gently handed down in the Chicago lake front
cases the question of riparian rights" il con-
sidered. and that makes IT of especial interest
here because Of pending litigation ON the sub
ject in this state. The language OF the decision
would seem to support the pretensions that
have been made in regard to riparian rights in
Washington, but, upon examination, l think
this seeming will disappear. Property rights
are creatures OF law, and tenures of every
kind must have foundation in decree, enact
ment or prescription. Each sovereignty deter
mines the conditions for itself The riparian
rights mentioned in the opinion under consd-
Grafton are creatures OF the laws OF Illinois and
must be looked for in her constitution and
statutes, or in the common law of England,
which she adopts in the absence OF statute.
1t is OF utility to know what those RICH Is are,
in Illinois or any other jurisdiction, in order
to determine what they are here. Illinois, in
the exercise OF her sovereign rights. has deter
mined them as between her citizens and her
self, and the state of Washington has also deter.
mined them as between her citizens and herself.
There it would seem, the people were so Jealous
OF their rights in the shore lands and nsvixable
waters that they would not even trust their
legislature to deal with them except in a very
limited way. Here the people dealt with the
problem in proper person through their con-
mittee, the constitutional convention, and also
intrusted their legislature with certain super.
visory powers. 1t may be impossible for citizens
to gain title to shore lands in Illinois. but it is
not impossible here. On the contrary a very
plain and simple process has been provided by
law. To be sure, the state, by any deed It might
make to shore lands, would not authorize its
grantee to obstruct, impair or injurieusly
modify the usefulness Of any of its navaable
waterss nor would 1t authorize the grantee of
any OF its uplands to maintain q nuisance there
upon. The state OF Washington, however, can
make as good title to its shore lands as ii can
to its uplands.