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

57 People vs.. Hoadley, 80 Cal. "a. in one ca.
sentlal and deteTminaive particular. II the lands
mere IN controversy are Impressed with trust II
Is, according to the prevailing opinion IN the
Chicago decision, trust Of such high nature that
no judgment oil any court could relieve the land
CT lis impress Nay. even the State Itself. rs the
case declares. cannot relinquish the trust and
The control OF the State can never be lost For
says Justice Field. 1T is grants OF parcels
Ol land under naylgabe waters that may
AFFORD foundation for whaTves piers docks
and other structures in aid OF commerce,
and giants oil parcels which, being
occupied. do not substantially impair the public
Interest In the lands and water remaining that
are chiefly considered aud sustained In the ad-
judged cases as valid exercise OF legislative
power consistently with the trust TO the public
upon which such lands are held by lie State
But that Is very ditfe ent doctrine from the
one which would sanction the abdIcation OF the
general control OF the State over lands under the
navlgabie waters OF an entire harbor or bay or
OF sea or lake. Such abdication is NOT con
sistent with their exercise of that trust which
requires the government OF the State 10 preserve
such waters Tor the use Of The public. The trust
devolying upon the Stale for the public, and
which can only be discharged by The manage.
ment ana control OF property IN which lie public
has an Interest, cannot be ielinqGi. he'd by a
transfer OF the property. The control Of the
Stale for The purposes OF the tiust can never be
lost. except as TO such parcels as are used in
promoting the Interests Of the public therein
or can be disposed OF Without any substantial
impairment of The public interest ia tie lands
and water remaining. The State can no
more abGicaEe It's trust over property IN which
the whole people are Interested. like naVigable
waters and soils under them so a : 10 leave tneni
entirely under the use and control of private
parties, except IN The Instance OF parcels men
toned for the Improvement OF navigation aud
use Of the waters, or when parcels eau be dis
posed OF without impairment OF the public in
iefest 10 what remains, then IL can abdicate It's
police powers Ia the administration OF the gov
eminent and the preservation OF the peace. In
the administration OF government the use OF
SUCH powers may for limited period
be delegated 10 a municipality or other body,
but there always remains with the State
the right 10 revoke those powers and
exercise them IN more direct manner
ana one more confOrmabie TO its wishes so
with trusts connected with public property or
property OF special character. like lands under
naVigaDle waters, they cannot be placed entirely
beyond the direction and control OF the State
The trust with which they are held there
lore IS governmental aud cannot be alienafed ex.
cept IN those Instances mentioned Of parcels
USED In the Improvement OF The interest thus
held, or when parcels can be dispose1 of without
Ointment to the public interest in the lands and
waters remaining. Vefv
different Is such au tpaiienable trust which exists
as matter OF law from one whose existence
turns upon question OF fact rs TO which latter
me judgment aud decree OF court OF competent
Jurisdiction would Internationally be conclu-
sye aud bar"
What Is the Size Limit7
Coming thus TO consideration OF the Chicago