The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-02-03
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1so
ATTORNEY MARES VERY
 CONCLUSIVE OPINION.

Al 44OAe4NI4 NlANIO
 CONCLUSIVE OPINION.
 In reply to queries from the Connec- ticut Oystermen's Protective associa- ton, Ex-City Attorney Marr gave an opinion upon the harbor line question, which appeared in the Farmer yester- day. For the convenience of those unable to read the conclusive finding in it's entirety, We append the follow inS summary of it's more prominent features, promising however that they are based upon decisions of the Su- 1rerne court:
 There is no doubt that the State of Connecticut has powCr to establish har- Dor lines within Bridgeport harbor, and to delegate such power to the city.
 So far as the right of the upland owner to wharf out to the channel has not been exercised, is concerned, the state can establish a harbor line in the bona ffde interests of navigation with out cornpensating the upland proprie- tors.
 The State has title to the soil itself below high water mark; the upland proprietor owns only to the high water mark, but may wharf out to navfgable water, subservient, however, to the public right of navigation.
 The State has the right to keep nav igable waters free from Instructions and to improve old or dig new chan 1iels below high water mark. especially when the right to wharf out has not been exercised.
 The Farist decision does not apply because the 11arbor line then in ques- tion was not in the interest of naviga- ton, but avowedly to prevent the erec- ton of structures which would otstruct the view of the new lower bridge.
 The State may establish harbor lines as against the unexercised right of wharfing out without mourning any damages whatsoever and may place such harbor lines anywhere between the channel and the high water mark on the shore. Against the exercised right of wharf1ng out, if harbor lines condemn property already erected and require it's removal and prohibit re- pairs, damages for such property could probably be collected.
 The State may require the city to pay damages for unexercised wharfing privileges, but has not done so for the new charter does not contain that sec- ton of the old charter which provided for the ascertainment and payment of damages.
 Such is the substance of the Marr opinion. It only remains, to complete the record, to add such facts as have transpired since the opinion was ren- dered.
 . At Monday nights meeting of the board of Aldermen, the conmitte on charter amendments presented ma jority report in favor of amendments submitted by Mayor Lee and action upon them was deferred until Monday evening next. One of those amend ments, as prepared by a majority of the committee, proposed to replace in the charter the section under which the city might be compelled to pay dam ages to the holder of unexercised wharfing rights. Fortunately, the Far Tner. on the eve of the Aldermanic meeting, discovered and uncovered this little joker,' the results being that the Mayor declared 1t Ca clerical er- ror," and that it does not appear in the amendments as since prepared to be printed for submission to the AL dermen on Monday next.
 Whatever may be the action of the Aldermen upon the amendments, May or Lee announced that he proposed *to take them to Hartford" That is, if the Aldermen should reject the amend rnents, he will nevertheless ask the General Assembly for their adoption. Action on charter amendments is real ly a legislative function, yet in this case the executive proposes to usurp it, which is effrontery almost unparalleled
 There will be close watch kept upon these amendments, lest the one allowing the collection of damages and withdrawn as "a clerical error." some how and by some secret means find it's way back into the document.