New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-09-28
FREE BEACH POSSIBLE
At CONEY ISLAND SOON
Court Decision Opens Way 10
Clearing Away of Fences
ALONG Waterfront.
ACTION BY STATE PROBABLE
steeplechase Park Owner VIII
Not Fight Decree So Long
as AL Other obstruc-
tions Are Removed.

decision handed down yesterday ~
r,,..,oe Rs,edict. OF the Supreme Court.
BROOKLYN. declaring that the ownership
OF the beach at Coney Island, between
high and low water marks, is vested IN
the state may be instrumental III
,sk,pp the resort a second Atlantic
CITY. At least. such Is the nope OF
George c. TiIyou. Emile Huber ana
others who have large interests theVe'
Il Is believed that with this decision rs
me basis the Attorney General VIII
continue his fight for the peoples
rights and will. by next summer per
hans. have all the fences, bulkheads
and docks that obstruct the beach re-
moved This. 20 is expected. will also
include the Enclosures al Brighton ana
Manhattan beaches. into which the
people have had 20 pay TO 20.
Yesterdays decision was reached IN
the action brought by the Attorney
General IN the name OF the state
against SteepIechase Park and others.
A strip Of beach about 633 feet long
and 126 feet wide was affected direct
~. but the decision indirectly applies 10
all the land so situated in the state.
When Mr.. Tilyou, who IS the chief
stockholder in Steeplechase Park. was
told OF the decision Yesterday after
noon he said that ne was satisfied, ana
that II he was assured by the Attorney
Generals office that all other landhold-
ers at the beach would be compelled 10
remove their instructions he would not
appeal. He explained himself as fol-
lows.
ct believe that the future OF Coney
Island depenCs upon a free and open
beach. properly administered and con-
irolled. 7 have a pier al Atlantic City
which virtually exists through the free
and open beach. Since this suit was
only directed against Steeplechase Park
and did not include all persons so using
the beach I was compelled 10 fight the
action. II all had been included in the
action the litigation would now be end
ed. II the Attorney General can show
me 10 my satisfaction that every one
along here is 10 be treated alike and
that am not u be the goat I viii not
appeal from the decision"
In his decision Justice Benedict re-
stricts his observations and deduc-
tions" 10 tidal lands Of the state for
which no patent has been issued" he
cites as his authorities the cases Of the
town OF Brookhayen vs.. Smith. in 1ss
New York Reports. and Barnes VS..
Midland Railroad Terminal Company,
IN 1913 New York Reports. The de-
Cision saws, in part
The Barnes case recognized a public
right Of passage over all lands over
which the tide Gibbs and flows. A pub
lie right OF passage includes not only
the right 10 pass on foot. but also.
wherever It is physically possible, with
vehicles including vehicles drawn or
propelled by horse or other motive
power. IN other words. as interpret
the Barnes case, IL recognizes that
beach between high and low water con-
stitUtes a sort OF natural public high
way. and. although il may not be- sub
ject 70 all the incidents Of d regularly
established public highway, II is sub
Jet 10 the right Of the public % travel
over 10 by ali means used on the public
highways Of the state. I also think the
Barnes case is authority for the propo-
sition that the people hold the fee title
90 such tidal lands in their sovereign
capacity IN trust for the benefit OF the
public"
After directing that the distractions
on the beach in front OF the park be re-
moved. the decision says.
The walk known as 'Tilyou's Walk
constitutes a proper approach 20 the
pier. and may remain. provided that a
suitable and convenient means for
passage under it by persons on foot
and for vehicles al all states OF ;ne
tide is maintained"