Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1908-02-23
COMBINES
SCHEME IS
EXPOSED
JOSEPH CALL THROWS LIGHT
ON FLINT RESOLUTION
YIELDS GOVERNMENTS POWER
TO CORPORATIONS
Distinguished Attorney Shows How
Peninsula Plan Is Resurreeted to
Foreclose San Pedro
Opposition

Although yesterday was a holiday
members of the harbor commission and
of the merchants exchange and other
COMMERCIAL bodies watched the Wash
ington kilograms to see If they mao
any inkling of development In the san
Pedro harbor situation.
Senator Fank Flints action in intro-
duoing an amended resolution proViu-
ing that harbor lines be estaDllsheu py
the secretary of war for both the eas'
ana west basins carried reassurances
that the plans would go ahead With
ont any favoritism to the railroad cor
porations that dominate most OF the
shore line.
| Joseph II. Call, one of the autnorl-
ties on the San Pedro harbor sltuatioii
sent the following communication u
The Herald: -
Editor of The Herald-While the
press and the people of Southern Cali
fornia are thoroughly aroused by the
Flint resolution concerning the estep-
lishment of harbor lines in san Penro
harbor and are aware that TINS reso-
lution is In effect an act Of congress
which practically yields up the power
of the United States to control the
navigation and establish harDor lines
in the interest of the Southern PaclIle
combine, yet its legal aspect mas MOI
been much considered.
The Significance of the Flint reso-
luton is more fully realized by con-
sideration of the request filed with the
United States engineers In December
1906, by the Southern Pacific Railroad
company, the Banning company and
the San Pedro, Los Angeles q SAL
Lake Railway CT mpany, In which those
petitioners requested that the san
Pedro harbor be improved according
to what was then called the ''pentnsula
plan"
That plan was generally taken as
falsely assuming that the petitioners
as owners of submerged lands had the
legal right to dictate to the Uniteo
States where harbor lines of the inner
harbor should be established, but as
the United States, under its power &c
regulate commerce and navigation, hao
the undoubted right to establish har-
Dor lines and Improve navigation with
out regard to the ownership or the
submerged or tidal lands. one public
notice of the application was given II
accordance with the then and at pres
ent existing law.
This scheme of the combine to Sc
cure control of the inner harbor as
we'll as of the outer harbor was by
means of this public hearing, under
stood in ample time, anu the corps OF
engineers in charge of harbors. aftel
such full public condemnation, de-
clined to accede to the sedfish and un'
reasonable demands of the railroads.
The Flint resolution simply in effec'
resurrects the peninsula plan, or a.
least makes its establishment possible
and FORECLOSES ALL OPPOSITION
to 1t, ami proposes to establish, by acl
of congress, the complete domination
of the Southern Pacific over the innel
harbor of San Pedro by means of an
unrighteous and illegal assumption
that the ownership of submerged lands
carries with it tie control of commerce
and navigation upon the water.
No principle is more thoroughly es-
tablished than that the United States
has the power to establish horbor lines
and improve navigation within the ebt
and flow of the tide, regardless of the
ownership of the title of the SUBJ
merged land. The title to such land
is held subordinate to the right oil
navigation, and is a naked fee abso-
luteiy worthless where the water is
used or available for public navigation
The following principles are thor
oughly established by decisions of the
United States courts with respect to
which include the lands lying below
the line of average high water mark
upon navigable streams. and with re-
spect to the power of the United
States, or of the state, , occupy and
use such submerged lands in aid OF
commerce and navigation:
First-Patents issued by the United
States to lands bounded by navigable
waters convey the title only to the up
lands and down to the line of high tide
Second-The several states of the
Union, by virtue of their soereignty,
hold the fee title to the lands below
the line of high water mark, in trust
for the whole people for purposes of
dispose of such lands by grant to in
dividuals, but always subject to the
commerce clause of the national con-
stitution.
Thlrd-Whether the title to SUBJ
merged lands is held by the United
States, or by the state, or by any in
dividual under the state, is a matter
of no consequence as affecting the
power of congress to appropriate and
occupy such lands for purposes of COM
merce and navigation. so far as such
waters may be connected with the
navigable waters of any other state.
fee Of such submerged lands is held
subordinate to the power of the gov
eminent, state or national as the case
may be, to occupy them and improve
them for such commerce and naviga-
ton, without making compensation to
the owner of such fee.
The following extracts from some of
the leading cases will illustrate the
above principles:
In Illinois Central railroad VS.. Ilii-
nols, 146 u. S., SS9. at pages 435, 452
and 453. the court said:
1t is the settled law of this country that
the ownership of and dominion and sovereignty
over lands covered by tide waters, within the
limits OF the several states, belong to the re-
spective states within which they are found
with the consequent right to use or dispose Of
any portion thereof, when that can be done
% the public in the waters. and subject always
to the paramount right of congress to control
their navigation SO far may be necessary
for the regulation of commerce with foreign
nations and among the states. This doctrine
has been often announced by this court, and
Is not questioned by counsel OF any of the
parties. -Pollard's Lessee VS.. Hagan, How.
2i2: Weber VS.. Harbor Commissioners, IS Wall.
81.
That the state holds the title to the lands
under the navigable waters OF Lake Michi-
gan, within Its limits. in the same manner
that the state holds title to soils under tide
water by the common law. we have already
shown, and that title necessarily carries with
1t control over the waters above them when
ever the lands are subjected to use But It is
the state holds In lands intended for sale.
II is different from the title which the United
States holds In the public lands which are
open to presumption and sale.