The Cairo bulletin. (Cairo, Ill.) 1???-1928, 1911-02-07
.arious political subdivisions so

various political subdivisions so af
fectel.
In matters of national import there
might be ample justification for the
government Of the United States pro
ceeding without reference to the
wishes of the state of Illinois, hut
where the same concerns merely
matter of local Improvement to be
made upon the part Of private inii-
ylduals every reason suggests that
the wishes of the state of Illinois and
its political subdivisions, SO far as
may be, shall be respected.
The supreme court of the state Of
IL inois has passed upon the effect OF
these permits, and it has said in the
ease Of Cobb VS.. Commissioners cf
Lincoln Park, 202 Ill 4S7:
appellant also claims that by vir-
tue of the license from the secretary
of war he is entitled to build this
wharf because, as he says, license.
from the executive officer of the gov
ernment TO build this wharf means
permission and authority from the
United States government to do so,
/ and such permission and authority
being granted, neither the state nor
any Of its agents has any control over
the subject matter.
He refers to the river and harbor
act of congress of Sept 10, 1890 (2G
Stat. at Large. chap 907, p. 4.c) IS
sanctioning his contention. Section Z
Of this act was superseded by sections
8 and 10 OF the river and harbor act
Of March 3, 1899 60 Stat. at Large,
chap. 425, PIP. 1921, 1151.)
Section 10 of the latter act is as
follows: That the erection of any
obstruction not affirmatively author
lied by congress, to the navigable ca
pacity of any Of the waters of the
United States Is hereby prohibited,
and 1t Shall not be lawful to build or
commence the building of any wharf,
pier, dolphin, boom, weir, breakWatep
any port, roadstcad. haven, ha"hor
! navigahle river OF other water of tie
United States outside established har-
Dor lines or where no harEor lines
nave been. established, except on
plans recomNended by the chief of
engineers AMI authorized by the ESQ
rotary of war, and il shall not he
lawful to eXcayate or fill, or in any
manner alter or modify the course,
location, condition or capacity of any
port, roadstoad, haven, harbor, canal,
lake, harbor of refuge or enclosure
within navigablc water of the United
States unless the work has been re-
commended by the chief of engineers
and authorized b. the secretary Of
war prior to beginning the case
These provisions OF the law were
designed to protect the nayigable
waters of the United States frof en-
Icroachment and from distractions to
navigation aud commit the duty of
their protection to an officer of the
general government without whose
permission no structures can be cree
ted in Them.
at Is conceded that the power OF
congress over the navigable waters
of the country is derived from the
commerce clause in the constitution
of the United States, and that 1t is
exclusive and paramount whenever
congress mas definitely spoken on any
subject under its jurisdiction.
ut has been held by the federal
courts thatwhen congress- has author
Eized the creation of a bridge il is not
necessary to obtain the consent of the
state authorities for its erection, and
that no compensation need be made
to the state for the use of it's property
in the lands under water (Stockton
VS., Baltimore and New York Railroad
| Company, SO ed. Rep. 81, and that an
individual has no claim for compensa-
ton when the general government
erects piers on his submerged lands An
all of navigation and thus cuts off
his access to the water Scranton
VS.. Wheeler, 179 u. S 141.)
But, however that may be, we are
of the opinion that the act prohibit
ing the erection of wharves without
the consent of the secretary of war
is a mere regulation for the benefit
| OF commerce and navigation, and that
tho license or permission of the sec
rotary of war Is only a finding and
! declaration of such officer that such
proposed structure would not inter
Ifere with or be detrimental to navi-
cation, and not that it is equivalent
| to a positive declaration by the au
thority Of congress that lcensee may
build the wharf or other structure
without first obtaining the consent oil
the owner OF the submerged land or
watch 1t is his purpose to build.
! Appellant not having by the law
of this state the right to construct
wharf over his neighbours submerge
lands without his neighbor's consent
could not acquire that right without
| bis neighbours consent by obtaining
a license from the secretary of war.
We are further strengthened in
this view by section II of The act Of
congress Of 1899 Ga substantial re
| pnaptnnnt nj epption - M Tho nnt n