The morning call., 1893-09-01
LAND TITLES.
The following from an esteemed CORE
spondent is suggestive:

spondent is suggestive:
SAN JOSE. Cal, August 80, 1893
Ed'tor CAL: Reading yesterday two edi-
totIalS IN your paper, one concerning the water
front case, The other concerning the case of the
railroad VS.. The Settlers. the question occurred
10 me, VIZ: Is not the principle laid down by
the United States Supreme Court in the Chicago
laKe-Iront decision applicable TO the case of the
settlers? If l interpret the Chicago case cor
recty the principle there maintained is that
III State IN the exercise OF its sovereignty over
certain class OF lands-land subject TO the ebb
ana now OF the tide, land beneath the waters
OF the great lakes ana navigable streams-can-
not grant title in fee: that such land Is held
by the State in trust for the whole people, that
an attempted grant OF such lands TO railroad
company in derogation OF the rights of tile
people Is void.
Now then. why should not the same doctrine
hold good as applying TO another class of lands
the public lapds-the sovereignty In which Is
vested in the United States? BY parity of
reasoning could not a court properly say 'such
lands are held by the general Government In
trust for the people; that Congress has no au-
thority 10 grant that land TO railroad company
In derogaton OF the rights of the people?" If
such doctrine could be maintained would not
the facts in the case OF the r llroad Company
vs.. The Settlers justify decision of the court
pany was absolutely void?
l am aware that such a decision would in
validate all railroad land grants but is not that
"consummation devoutly 10 be wished"?
am also aware that the Supreme Court
might have to reverse its former decisions IN
order TO set up such doctrine, but inasmuch
as the court did that very thing in reaching
conclusion in the Chicago case, such former de-
cisions can hardly be called obstacles. Yours,
Fl. a. MASON.
Our correspondent evidently perceives the
radical difference between the two classes
of land under consideration. The tide
water lands have an especial value in the
fact that they are channels of commerce.
The products OF millions of acres of land
may seek a market through this channel.
1t becomes. therefore, a further necessity
that this class of land should be withheld
from absolute ownership. Otherwise a
man or company might acquire rights that
would enable him to tax every product of
the territory seeking an outlet through this
channel all it would bear. TIE lillers of
the soil in such case would be much in the
position Of tenant under an agreement
to pay over to the landlord all the proceeds
of the land in excess of bare living. The
other class of LANDS has no such especial
value. They are simply part of the pro-
ductive area OF the State. They cannot be
held in way 10 prevent the products OF
other land from reaching market They
are not, in fact. channel of commerce.
1t would follow. therefore, that an at
tempted grant of waterfront land would
be void. while grant Of ordinary land
would be valid.
Concerning The proposition that all rail-
road land grants may be invalidated with
out injustice to the companies to whom
they have been granted. the principle is
enc that cannot be considered. When
land grants have been made asa part of
the consideration for the investment of
money in railroad, and where the condi-
tions have been complied with, there
should be no disturbance of title. But
land grants that have not been earned
may justly be declared void, and the people
may insist that hereafter 10 land shall be
granted in large bodies to corporations or
Individuals. The land policy of this gen.
GRAFTON has apparently been based on the
idea that after US comes the deluge. People
now in middle age have seen the territory
Of the United States more than double in
area, and a good many have seemed TO
think that if all the new territory was not
converted into private ownership by the
generation that acquired it it would be
lost.