The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Port Development A Comprehensive Exposition of the Relative Duties of Federal, State and Municipal Authorities r O. understand the duties of Federal officials in questions of this class, a knowledge of the responsibilities and powers of the general government is necessary. Remembering the burdens caused in Colonial days by the restrictions then placed on commerce by law, the fram- ers of the constitution wisely included in the powers surrendered by the state to the general government the entire control of interstate commerce, as enumerated in the first and_ third articles. Early in the Nation's life, the gen- eralities of the fundamental law had to be interpreted and applied to particulars by the Congress and justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and providentially, as it now seems, the justices of that court have been men of wide vision. From the beginning, both the laws enacted and the interpretation made of those laws have been in har- mony, and have consistently ruled -that the powers of the United States over the instruments of interstate commerce are supreme. Late decisions have sim- ply served to emphasize the wide extent of the field of action of those powers. The local laws of the various states relating to' the navigable waters differed in accordance with the origin from which sprung the original settlers. The 13 colonies derived their laws and ideals of law from England. In .the states formed from the territories acquired by purchase, or as the results of a success- ful war, the Spanish law prevailed. In all, the control of the navigable waters had been vested in the crown as a trust for all of the people and the points of difference in the laws related mainly to property boundaries and riparian rights. In the transfer of sovereignty, this right of control had become a part of the powers of the people, at first in the trust of the separate colonies, but later surrendered by the states, their success- ors, to the nation. When new states were formed from the acquired territory the provisions of the constitution were made applicable to them. Thus, the rights of navigation have been made common to all of the people and the laws enacted for the preservation of these rights are national ational Association of Paper read before N Sept. 8, Port Authorities, Baltimore, Md., 1914, By Col. W. M. Black, Corps of Engineers, U. S. A. laws enacted by Congress. The several states may and do enact legislation re- garding the navigable waters within their limits and such laws are valid in so far as they do not conflict with the laws of the Nation. In many cases, Congress has acted slowly in the exer- cise of the national powers and even today the full extent of these powers has not been covered. Navigable Waters Under the English - precedent the navigable waters were limited to those in which the tide ebbs and flows. It was early perceived that such a_ limi- tation could not be applied to the water- ways of the United States and the Supreme Court had to make a new definition. Perhaps the best and most comprehensive definition is that given by Mr. Justice Field in the Daniel Ball case, 10 Wall., 557, in which he states: "Those rivers must be regarded as public navigable rivers in law which are navigable in fact. And they are navigable in fact when they are used or are susceptible of being used, in their ordinary condition, as highways for commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the cus- tomary modes of trade or travel on water. And they constitute navigable waters of the United States within the meaning of the acts of Congress, in contradistinction from the navigable waters of the states, when they form in their ordinary condition by themselves, or by uniting with other waters, a con- tinued highway over which commerce is or may be carried on with other states or foreign countries in the customary modes in which such commerce 1s con- ducted by water." In Gilman vs. Phila., 3 Wallace, 713, Mr. Justice Swayne delivering the opin- ion of the court said: "Commerce includes navigation. The power to regulate commerce compre- hends the control for that purpose, and to the extent necessary, of all the navigable waters of the United States which are accessible from a state other than those in which they lie. For this purpose they are the public property of - the nation, and subject to all the req- uisite legislation by Congress. This necessarily includes the power to keep them open and free from any obstruc- tions to the navigation, interposed by the state or otherwise; to remove such obstructions when they exist, and to provide, by such sanctions as they may deem proper, against the occurrence of the evil and for the punishment of the offenders. For these purposes Congress possesses all the powers which existed in the states before the adoption of the National Constitution, and which have always existed in the Parliament in England. "It is for Congress to determine when its full power shall be brought into activity, and as to the regulations and sanctions which shall be provided.' In Stockton vs. The Baltimore & New York Railroad Co., (32 Fed. Rep., 9), Mr. Justice Bradley, in rendering the opinion of the court, in answering the contention that although Congress may have power to construct roads and other means of commercial communication between the states, yet this can only be done with the concurrence and consent of the states in which the structures are made, said: "If this is so then the power of regu- lation in Congress is not supreme; it depends on the will of the state. We do not concur in this view. We think that the power of Congress is supreme over the whole subject, unimpeded and unembarrassed by state lines or state. law; that in this matter the country. is' one and the work to be accomplished is national, and that state interests, state jealousies and state prejudices do not- require to be consulted., In, matters of; foreign and interstate commerce there are no states." Comprehensive as this. is, later de- cisions have given even a wider scope to the powers. of the people in the preser- vation of the navigable waters as in the case of the United States vs. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co. (174, U. S., 690), in which the court said: "Although this power of changing the common law rules as to streams within its dominion undoubtedly belongs to each state, yet two limitations must be recognized: First, that in the ab- sence of specific authority from Con- gress a state cannot by its legislation destroy the right of the United States, as the owner of lands bordering a stream, to the continued flow of its waters; so far at least as may be neces- sary for the beneficial uses of the gov- ernment property. Second, that it is limited by the superior power of the general government to secure the un- interrupted navigability of all navigable streams within the limits of the United States. In other words, the jurisdiction of the general government over - inter- state commerce and its natural highways vests in that government the right to take all needed measures to preserve