The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1893-01-25

case and its applicability TO the questions here
involved, II will be seen that The power OF the
State 10 convey tide lands into private owner
ship, unburdened with any trust IS abundanty
recognized. Ii is only when the parcels con-
yeyed reach certain undetermined size or mag
ntude that the trust may not be abdicated and
the grant becomes ipSe fact0 either void OF at
the least revoeable. 1t Will further be regretted
by the profession that the relative size or the
parcels as to which a grant cannot be upheld
should not have been more specifically pointed
out In The prevailing opinion. And The supreme
Count OF the United States Is Itself divided not
only upon The question 10 the validity or In
validity OF the Chicago grant-four Judges az
frming 1t 10 be invalid and burdened with a
public trust, three asserting &c 10 be valid and
uuburdened with any trust-but the court is still
further divided upon the question of the relative
or proportonate size OF the parcel OF land in
that case conveyed.
The prevailing opinion substantially declares
Il to be a conveyance of the centre harbor."
The minority opinion speaks as follows: "Tne
opinion OF lie majority, If 1 rightly apprehend IT,
likewise comedies that a State does possess the
power o grant the rights OF property and pos
session In such lands 10 private parties, but the
power is stated 10 be, In some way restricted to
small parcels where such parcels can be
disposed Of without detriment to the public IN
terest IN the lands and waters remaining But
IL Is difficult 10 see how the valid exercise of the
power II the power exists. can depend on the
size OF the parcel granted. or how, II il be posi-
bic o Imagine that the power Is subject 10 such
a limitation. the present case would be affected
as the grant In question, though doubtless u
large and valuable one. IS relatively to the re.
certainly IN view OF the purposes TO be effected
not unreasonable.
Where Judges Differ.
Where such eminent and learned jurIsts differ.
IL may we'll be reason for regret 10 inferior
tribunals that more precise rule as to size Of
the parcel aud as TO the time when aud point at
which this public trust may be abdcated should
have been declared. For IL will be remembered
that this trust In the language OF he prevailing
opinion is not inalienahle 10 all parcels, but
may be lost las 10 such parcels are used In
promoting the interest of the public therein, OF
as 10 such as can he disposed OF without substan-
tal impairment the public interest ln,the lands
and waters remaining"
In View OF the unhappy confusion which may
result from this. The suggestion OF the dissenting
justices, that The standing of such grants aud
their effect upon the public interest in the lands
and waters remaining are matters of legislative
and not judicial discretion, would seem 10 be en-
Titled 10 much cOnSdei alton.
The case at bar, however, is not embarrassed
By this uncertainty. 1t can matter not whether
the whole baTbor OF Chicago only portion
the e0f was sought 10 be conveyed into private
ownership by the l. gisiature. The grant In this
case is OF SIM greater actual and relative Size
II the actual length OF the Chicago grant was