Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1893-07-16

v
ct.<l, where the vail Is nos required 10
Re baia - him 10 locsfedl asd mol
in a1s manner interfere with tie boa
age Il The river CT the pghise rights
therein- the supreme court teferseu
ieelsiou ~ the court against hsta. snd
IA sat<taacs said that he act sfoniy lad
tbs right to bassd q fesniaaent yah
where he dad. bat that ~ lad The
further right IL buiid IA the thread IL
the stream ID long az be did not inter.
rupt the How II the water. etc, therein
80 that - stated ia the arguments az
The respondents attorneys. there Is no
conp@asstion ~ riparian owners Ga sc-
count a any privileges inside Of the
dock hne that ia tbs least eompen-
sstes them for the deprivation OF the
rights they nov have 10 build ~ the
thread IL the stream. IA long AZ they do
not interfere eith the fiow 81 the water,
etc, and certainly where this so-csli.d
dock. etc. lines ruu upon the shore
and margin IL the stream IL can not De
claimed that there is even an inuendo
that any such compensation can exist.
for under this lax the building line Is
not permitted u 60 CUT beyond the outer
portion of the wall. even where such
wall runs upon the shore OF the stream.
which land the respondents unquostion-
ably own.
Rights ar the City,
Nor Is that all the trouble We meet.
FOR. by section three. page iaS. the city
of Grand Rapids may institute proceed
lngs fof the purpose II depriving ripar
ian owners. etc. Of all rights. estates or
land or any advantage. privileges or right
o. build out into the river beyond such
permanent lines. but the city Of Grand
Rapids shall. a. 10 all that portion OF
such lines situated between. etc, insti
tute proceedings for the purpose Of pre-
venting them from So building lsee sec
ton Is. page lt5, and after such pro-
ceedings have been taken IL shall. from
thence. be- absolutely unlawful for any
person or PEE sons Ia construct any dock.
wharf. building or structure ~ any kind
extending over and beyond said line. or
10 bill cut in said river. or in any manner
encroach upon said river beyond said
proceedings etc. Now. by this proyls
ION the owners OF all the river bed are
absolutely forbidden Ia build any kind
whether they build SO az not 10 obstruct
any rights Of the public. still by the
same act. the city IL empowered 10y Sec
ton -. page i6s. ar follows: 1T shall
nevertheless. he lawful. and the city
shall have the right. Ia erect and main
tain public market places. etc. over and
across said river beyond the lines so 80
tablished. and such market places. etc.
To be supported 10y stone or iron piers.
sx..s 80
ing upon the river bed and then de.
scribcs the manner in which the piers
or columns shall be placed.
Obstructing the River.
Ii ia claimed in the argument upon
one side that IL this law il good at all.
the city has the right. anyw here between
these lines. to build it's market places,
etc, even over the entire length II the
river between these lines within the cts
limits. while the owner Ia prevented for
ever from building either private
or public market or any other
building upon the same kind
OF piers or columns. which will in no
manner ot,etruct the river any more
than the piers and columns permitted
Ia be built by the city This proposition
Is denied upon the part 81 the city. and
they refer 10 section 1 article :. of the
state constitution. as restricting them 10
"A certain extent. but that section does
not seem. directly or Indirectly. 10 refer
10 the building Of market places In the
river; first, because Grand river has
been adjudged not Ia be navigable
river at this point; and. second. because
a market place Is not necessarily "a
bridge or "A dam.
The section referred 10 reads as fol
lows: Article IL. section 4. No nayi-
able stream ia this state shall lie either
sbridgcdl or damned without authority
from the board ~ supervisors Of the
proper county. under the provisions OF
law" 30 the constitution does not seem
TO apply 10 the market places permitted
to toe built 10y the city IL 50 built as not
10 prejudice the right II individuals To
the free navigation thereof.
On the one hand il is claimed that the
city under this law can cover the entire
bed of the RIVER between the lines men.
ton. from city limits Ia city limits. and
that the individual is forever
prccluded from doing the same
thing. in the same manner. on
his own land. However that may b.,.
under the wording OF THE law this is
certain. that IL such ~ not the correct
| infcrpretatlon Of the law there are too
| strong grounds for the justification 81
antagonistic interferences from it's Ian
guage. III such was not the object aud
aim OF section - few words incorpor-
I ated therein would have left the inien.
ton II the legislature clear, where now.
| Il Is TO say the least. vague and unceT-
tain. and every law having for its object
I the deprivation upon one side and the
assumption upon the other IL such i'm
| portant interests should be SO clear as
10 be- susceptible Of only one interpreta
ton. Besides this. II IL quite apparent
| that the rights and privileges secured
10 the city hy this section are II great
/ benefit To the city. but they
are thus secured by depriying
the riparian owners ~ tho same
/ rights aud privileges. and no cotnpcnsa-
tion seems 10 h provided therefor. Such
! objects are not german 10 the estab.
I lishment ~ dock lines and are not em
braced IA the title 81 the act. As before
stated. n Is possible for the main pur
/ ppse 81 the act to stand with the pro.
/ vision relative g. sewers struck out. bot
i to continue the operation bs removing
/ the provisicus relating To- compelling IN.
dividuals 30 bliild aud maintain walls
Z and the further provision relative 20
public markets would ~ a hazardous
experiment. for a cannot be safely said
Z that the act Mould ever have been
+ passed. hy the legislature. simply In -
( tsbiish dock. etc. lines. bad not these
provisions relative 10 other objects been
enlbFafesi IA e
3 Il ~. fk.s .ft.ft q ....stFfa a..