The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-11-13
RIGHT TO BUILD PIERS.
The Supreme Court. Decision In the
Scranton Case.


The Supreme Court. Decision In thu
Scranton Case.
The Supreme Court OF the United State.
yesterday rendered an important decision
in case involving the power OF Congress.
to regulate commerce between States a:
implied to improvements to navigation
The case was that OF Gilbert G. Scranton
the owner of lands in St. Mary's Falls
Mimi, who brought suit against Evan s.
/ Wheeler, the Government superintendent
in charge OF the improvements to naviga-
tioE there. for damages 20 his riparian
, rights by the erection OF pier on sub
merged lands in front of his property.
| Under the Inv of Minnesota the riparian
rights extend to the middle Of the river or
lake. and Scranton based his quit for dam
ages on the constitutional provision that
private property should not be taken by the
| Government without just compensation
| therefor. The case was tried first in the
Michigan courts, afterward in the Circuit
Court Of the United States. and finally in
| the Supreme Court of Michigan, which de-
, cided the plaintiff had no cause for action.
Justice Harlan delivered the opinion OF
i the court, from which Justices Shiras.
Gray, and Peckham dissented. After dis
posing of the Michigan law governing ri
parian rights by the assertion thai it was
overawed by the Federal laws controlling
Manageable waters. the opinion says
The vital question was whether the
constitutional inhibition upon the taking
of private property for public use without
Just compensation has any application to
the case of an owner Of land bordering up
on public navigable river, whose access
from his land to naYigability is permanent
ly obstructed by pier resting upon sub
merged land away from. but in front Of.
his upland, and which pier was erected by
the United States for the purpose only Of
improving the navigation Of the river. In
doubtediy compensation must be made or
secured to the owner. If what is done
amounts to taking of his property"
The opinion proceeds: "Of course every
part of the Constitution Is binding upon
Congress as upon the people. Thu guar
antees prescribed by it for the security
of private property must be respected by
all. But whether navigation upon waters
over which Congress may exert its au-
tllority requires improvement at all or
improvement in particular way are
matters wholly within its discretion. and
the Judiciary is without power 10 control
or defeat the will of Congress 50 long
as that branch of the Government does
not transcend the limits established by
the supreme law of the land. Is the
bread power with which Congress is in
vested burdened with the condition that
the riparian owner, whose land borders
upon q navigable water of the United
States, shall be compensated for h s
right Of access 20 the navigable part
of such river whenever such right ceases
tn ha rt Ina n n
the improvement of navigation by piers !
that rest upon submerged lands away |
from the shore line? We think not The |
primary use of the waters and the lands |
under them is for purposes of navigation, |
and the erection of piers in than to i'm |
prove navigation for the public is en- |
tirely consistent with such use and in /
fringe5 no right of the riparian owner. |
Whatever the interest OF riparian own |
er in the submerged lands in front Of |
his uplands. his title is not as full and
complete as his title acquired to fast !,
lands which has direct connection
with the navigation of the river or wa
ter on which it borders. 1t Is not title
at h3 absolute disposal, but is to be held
at times subordinate to such use of the
lands and of the waters flow
ing over them as is consistent with or
demanded by the public right of naviga-
l
intended by the trainers of the Consti-
tuition that the paramount authority of
Congress to improve the navigation of
the public navigable waters of the Unit I'd
5tctes should be crippled by compelling
the Government to make compensation .
FOR ire injury that might Indirectly re-
sulf from IN improvement to a riparian
owner Ttgh5 to navigabilfty. The sub
ect II w'1ich Congress dealt was naviga-
agents designated to perform the work
,rdernl or authorized by it had the
light to proceed in all proper ways with ;
)ut taking into account the injury that |
nj sht possibly or indirectly result from |
such work to the right of access to navi-
liability of riparian owners"
The judgment OF the Supreme Court of I
iichigan was. therefore. affirmed.
The dissenting opinion delivered by Jus ;
ice Shiras differs radically from the views
f the majority. He holds with Justices
ray and Peekham that the power Of the
Government to control and regulate navi-
able streams and to carry into effect
chemes for their improvement is not d
ectly given by the Constitution but is 4
My recognized by the courts as incl
ent to the power expressly given to regu
ate commerce between the States and with
Dreign nations. I
Now, says the opinion. IF il be held +,
hat Congress has power to take or de-
troy private property lying under or ad
,cent to navfsable streams. without COM {
ensating their owners. because it is done 4
! the exercise of the power to regulate d
then it must, follow that the n
anne unlimited power can be exercised +
18th respect TO private property not in or
ounded by water. The power of Congress a
, regulate commerce is not restricted to u
'mmerce carried on in lakes and rivers. u
ut equally extends to commerce carried II
4 by land. If Congress. yielding to loud o
nd increasing demand that it should take u
possession and control of the railroads of
lie country. or should undertake the con- u
ructiOn of new railroads as arteries of 3
this novel motion that the ex- a
tence of the right 10 regulate commerce 81
Gates Of itself and independently OF the
W OF the State {. Federal servitude on all
'operty to be affected by the exercise of
at right would apply to all kinds of pri- t
lite property wherever situated
ARMoR PLATE CONTROVERSY.