The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-03-23
RIGHTS ON RIVER
FAR-REACHING DECISION BY
JUDGE BROOKS VERSUS BOOM
COMPANIES
SHORE OWNERS HAVE CALL
Mill Companies Cannot Maintain
Piers and Rooms in River OBJ
structing Shore Owners Free
Access to Channel.

Judge Frank Brooks, of the Hennepin
county district court, has rendered an
important and far-reaching decision de-
filming the rights of shore owners against
those of boom companies. In the case Of
Nelson II. Reeves against the Backus-
Brooks company, the court goes further
than any previous decision in holding
that the plaintiff is entitled to a perma-
nent injunction restraining the lumber
company from maintaining any piers,
booms, or other distractions in the river
in sucn way as to prevent free access
from the shore to any part of the naVi-
gable channel.
Reeves and his brother own 600 feet of
frontage on the r. Gr just above the
Backus-Brooks mill. In front of this
stretch the Backus- Brooks company
maintains booms and other works neces-
sary for its pockets, sorting gaps, with
piers and sheds for the rivermen ETC.
There is a clear space Of from forty
three to Seventy-one feet between the
shore and the first boom. The lumber
company has leased the land north of
that owned by Reeves for the purpose of
facilitating its operations at the mill be-
low Thus, though the Reeves have about
GOO feet of clear space in which to pad
ole around, they are debarred by the
booms and logs of the lumber company
from using the river for boating or other
purposes for which a navigable stream
may be used These are the conditions
against which the Reeves complained in
their suit.
The court in it's decision SAYS:
First-That the plaintiff, as the owner
of the premises described in the com
plant is entitled to free communication
therefrom to the navigable channel of
the mississippi river, which is open to
public use, and not merely to waters of
said river inclosed by the distractions
placed by the defendants herein, though
the latter, except for said DISTINCTIONS
Would pc ana constitute part Of the
naVlgable channel thereof.
Second-That the plaintiff is entitled to
a permanent writ of injunction, forever
enJo1nIng and restraining the defendant,
It's ohcers, agents and employees, and
each and all of them, from maintaining
any piers, pilings, booms, structures or
logs in front of his said land in such &
manner as to deprive the plaintiff Of tree
and unobStructed communication between
the shores of his said land and the navi-
gable channel of said river, or any part
thereof, which is or may be open to pub
lie use for navigation for any purpose
for which such river is or may be adapt
ed.
The right to maintain any permanent
structures in the river in front Of this
land belongs to the plaintiff and net to
the defendant. Moreover, this right is
private as against the defendant and to
all persons other than the state or gem
eral government. AS has been said by
the supreme court, this action is strictly
one brought for private injury or
wrong" The defendant is not the state
or the agent for the state. 1t is not
even empowered to exercise the right or
eminent domain; and the plaintiff mas
the same right to cut off all access to
defendants mill that it has to appr0-
pirate without his consent his entire
short frontage, as it has undertaken to
do,
AS already held in this case, the ques-
ton is not whether plaintiff has occa-
sion to use or to exercise his rights as
a riparian owner The privileges of
which he is now deprived belong to him
exclusively until the state shall elect
for the public good to reclaim them.
The defendants acts are no less wrong
full because accompanied by words in
dicating its good faith or willingness at
some future time to abstain therefrom.
And if. as I conclude, the privileges
usurped by defendant belong in fact to
the plaintiff, no reason has been Or can
be suggested why immediate restitution
should not be granted.