Valdez daily prospector., 1915-12-06

vide for cOndemning them by the mu- But all these powers must and no doubt will be exercised by the Territorial Legislature with reason and moderation, and not in a spirit of destruction and c6nfiscation.
 Plaintiff cites a number of cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States generally touching the powers of towns. to regulate the sta tioping and landing of vessels, estab- fishing harbor limits, etc. These are all cases arising over such rights and on the banks of the rivers like the Mississippi. Counsel for plaintiff states that Ordinance No. 90 was modelled somewhat after that in Packet Co. vs. Catletts- burg 105 U. s. p. 559 ct seq. The conditions there are so totally differ- ent that the case does not seem to be applicable. There, along the banks of the river, craft of all kinds sought to tie up to the bank or to any land ing place, wherever they pleased, within the corporate limits of the town. The town having express leg islative power over the subject, could of course enact an ordinance requir- ing landings at the places designated. The situation there is shown by the following from pages 562 and 563:
 "The protection of the shore of
 the sea or bank of river on which
 a town Is situated is necessity to
 the town, and the washing and
 crumbling of the bank from the
 agitation of the waters, made by
 the landing of large steamers, de-
 mand that such regulations should
 exist.
 Small vessels, without steam,
 rafts, flatboats, keelboats, loaded
 to their very utmost capacity, and
 liable to be sunk by the waves
 which accompany the landing of
 large steamboats. have the same
 right to land at the shore that the
 steamers have, and they have
 right to protection against their
 powerful competitors for trade.
 This best can be secured by appro-
 priate regulations prescribing the
 places for the landing of each, and
 in some instances placing the mat
 ter under the control of wharf
 master or some officer whose duty
 it shall be to look after it.
 There is probably not a city or
 
 uated on navigable river where
 ordinances, rules and regulations
 like these of the town of Cattletts-
 burg are not made and imposed by
 authority deprived from State leg
 islation, and the long acquiescence
 in this exercise of the power and
 ments almost conclusive in favor
 r{r icfo v
 Here, not only is the legislative authority wanting, but the conditions are so dissimlar as to render the case inapplicable. On these river banks, a simple inexpensive structure, only, or none at all. was required for riv- Ter boat to tie up to; here large and valuable structure, of great value and service to the town has never been maintained under at least implied sanction of the law, for more than thirteen years. Congress by the Act of June 6. 1900, provided for the pay ment of certain amount per ton an- nually for license tax from public docks and wharves. It surely con- templated the construction and oper- ation of such public utilities. As this license money or tax goes to the mu- nicipalities wherein such dock is maintained, what would be the use of providing for taxing town wharf only to return the money to the town? If wharyes were not contemplated in towns where people congregate, where would they be needed? If a town in it's early days, situated as is Valdez had not money to provide a wharf, must. it go without? It could never grow into much town without a wharf.
 Congress in enacting Section 79S, Compiled Laws of Alaska, supra, providing that private corporations might be lawfully formed to operate docks, wharves, etc., in Alaska, it must have contemplated that such structures were necessary, and would be built under this authority. The defendant company is formed under this act. And if towns in Alaska have no power to license or even permit such corporations to build and oper- ate Wharves, we encounter a manifest inconsistency and absurdity in Con- gress expressly authorizing an act which the town council says cannot be done.
 have not attempted to discuss the | legal question involved as to the right of defendant to maintain it's ap- proach and wharf in front of land owned by it, or by another who does not complain, bordering on the shore, which in this case is the line meandering the mean high tide line. The right of the defendant so to do would furnish further defense to the enforcement of said ordinance, but in view of the law as l under stand it to be and as above set forth, | it will not be necessary to determine the case upon that point.
 It has been held by the Court of Appeals, in the Ninth Circuit, in the case of Hazelet vs. Dalton, 1892 Fed. 562. as follows:
 Where homestead entry in Alas ka was bordered on one side by the meanders of the tide waters of Orca Inlet, the entryman as the