New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-12-06
CHICAGO LAKE FRONT CASES.
FINAL DECISION IN THE SUPREME COURT
THE ILLINOIS CEyTRAL's CLAIM TO TITLE IN
SUBMERGED LAND DENIED-JCoIitL
SUIRAS DISSENTS.

SHIRAs DIsSENTs.
Washington. Dec. 5.-The United states supreme
Court today affirmed the Judgment Of the Circuit Court
In the Chicago lake fJnt cases The case arose o'cr
suits between The Illinois Central Railroad company
and the people Of the state Of Illinois. the city OF
Chicago and the United states, involving title to sub
merged lands along about and fouriifths miles OF
the front Of the most valuable part OF inc mar
Dor Of Chicago the value of the property in litigation
being estimated at from $6000.0O0 according - TIE
figure given IN court by Mr.. Jewet. II the Illinois
Central to $4,000 600. the largest estimate made
About 1850 acres in dispute.
By virtue Of an act OF the Illinois Legislature passed
In 1889 when the city OF Chicago was q small tOWh
and It's great possibilities probably foreecn bN no
one, the Illinois Central Railroad Company receiver
certain rights In the water front of Lake hlcsah al
Chicago for railroad purposes, and it was held by inc
ralr)al cornpany the right also TO the water front
Itself Acting upon its claim to riparian ownership
Of the water front the railroad company bul' 'i'"N
and other works. and announced its intention 10 ''I
struct immense piers ana wharveS FAR out ih.o u'o
lake Ohe water being nine 10 thirty feet In dep''
suit was brought on behalf Of the city of Chicago ana
Of the state of Illinois TO restrain the railroad co-
pany from encrOaching the water front, WHICH was
held by the city and The State TO be pubic ana ho'
private property. 1t was asserted III pe'ui u INC
public authorities that the act OF leoo od hoO ''"
sttute grant of title to the land In lItlga'oh' IN"
there was no contract made by the grant mat Such
rights as had been granted had bcca repealed by law
enacted I'm 1873 that If grant OF the water 'front.' hi
been actually attempted 10 be made 10y The act Oi
1860 II void, for the reason lhat tle water io'
was public property dedicated TO pnohc ascs' anu
that the act therefore Unconstitutional ter"i"
othe points mostly Of technical character. were also
missed.
The case carie up before the United states Circuit
Court and Justice Haran sitting as Circuit Judge de-
lvered an opinion, Of which the general ehe't was ~
confirm the Illinois Central in its title 10 SrJuhu ao"s
the lake front already occupied by it for railroad pn
poses and 10 land 1t had reclaimed ana 10 P'cIS
previously erected, but against the Iaiiiot' COM
pany on the Qucetion OF title TO ;he submerged "9
along the present water front, the decision hOldns
that this was public property and that Whatever ns"9
had been granted therein had been Subsequently IT,
pealed
The majority opinOn of Justice Field on 'A' c''oe
Is one of great importance aside even rom 'he sr"
value OF the property in controversy Inc oe'i'ioN
will likely form landmark in future Ihs'uoii' ~
a considerable extent 1t lays down new law. Inc
controlling spirit Of the decision IS the sovereignty VI
tie people their own legislatures II i "''N
that the legislatures are Incompetent 10 gran pe"dom
over Dayig1ble WATERS Which interfere Wltl HeeuuIH
Of navigation and state municipal and Nauohai coz!
troll over 1t. ard that any ACT oil 'he e''''
The order Of the Court directs modification oil lie
decree below far relates to certain piers S
tore constructed by railroad company. lhe Imtvu
states supreme Court directing ulat judicial lh.est
cation be made 70 determine whether OF r no p.r
Twelfth and sixteenth SITS. are or are not ""th
nayfcable waters. II within navigable waters me
Railroad company IS Invested Of It's TILE 10 tH'se
piers. A.. ,,o, IN s,o,.d
Justice shirss, In oral dissent, which he stated
would be reinforced BY written dissent Ia,ef Sala
that In his opinion the grant OF the s,ate 10 ,e
illinois Central Railroad Company was vand grant
which constituted a contract between the railroad ad
the STATE and one which could not b. taken away
nv a subsequent arbitrary act OF the Legislature;
He held that the state could regulate .ne use oi
to protect the public interest," desired Sire tho to-
take the control Of the harb0 he DECLARED lna' Inv
whch the state could exercise its right of eminent
domain and take the property for public use l.. ,.,
The Chief Justice. having been OF counsel IN thc
court below. and Justice BiachfoT. being s'o s
holder In the Illinois Central Railroad Company din
no, take any part in the consideration decision of
these cases. justices Brown and Gray Joined justice
shirss In d, ssenung The four justices In favor Of
The city are Justices Field Harlan. lamar ana