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

444 the navigability of the navigable water courses of the country even against any state action." Decisions restricting the power of the states to make grants of submerged lands to private parties or to corpora- tions are found in Illinois Central R. R._ Co ve. limois 146.U. S., 387, and in The people of the State of California vs. ~ Southern Pacific R. RR. Co.,*- Superior Court of the State of California. In the administration of the laws re- lating to navigable waters, the question of the ownership of the submerged lands does not enter. The rights of navigation extend to the high water mark of tidal waters and to the ordinary water line of non-tidal waters, irrespective of such ownership, and the use which an owner of lands submerged by the navigable waters can make of his property must be such as does not interfere with the prior rights of navi- gation. Naturally, there must be authority vested in some one to decide whether a proposed use of the sub- merged lands can be permitted. In the acts of March 3, 1899, June 13, 1902, August 18, 1894, May 9, 1900, and March 3, 1905, are found the general laws for the protection of the navigable waters. A general bridge law exists in the act of March 23, 1906, and one relating to dams in the act of June 28, 1910. All constructions in or changes of capacity. of navigable waterways are forbidden unless specifically authorized by Congress or in certain cases by the Secretary of War to whom Congress has deputed a limited discretionary authority. For example, minor constructions on the shores or in the beds of navigable waterways may be authorized under per- mits from the Secretary of War. Fur- ther, Section 11 of the Act of March 3, 1899, provides that: "That where it is made manifest to the Secretary of War that the establish- ment of harbor lines is essential to the preservation and -protection of harbors he may, and is hereby, authorized to cause such lines to be established, be- yond which no piers, wharves, bulk- heads; or other works shall be extended or deposits: made, except under such regulations as may be prescribed from time to time by him." Harbor lines usually consist of two bounding lines along the shores of a waterway. That nearer the shore marks a limit for solid fill and is called a bulkhead line. The other marks a limit for open constructions beneath which the water can circulate and is termed a pierhead line. In certain cases the two are made coincident. In others, only a pierhead or a bulkhead line is es- tablished. In,.some cases the establish- ment of one or both 'lines is coupled THE MARINE REVIEW with the proviso that no construction shall be made between the shore and the -. line or lines, excepting under a permit from the Secretary of War in which the nature, extent and location of the structure shall be specified. Establishment of Harbor Lines. The establishment of harbor lines grants no privileges of ownership, but simply signifies that within the limits set by the lines there is no objection made by the United States, as trustee for the people, to the use of these sub- merged lands for the class of structures authorized. The establishment of har- bor lines is in the nature of the issu- ance of a general permit. Within the areas bounded by the harbor lines the uses of the submerged soil. may be still further regulated by state authority. The lines as established are subject to change where in the opinion of the Sec- retary of War the needs of navigation so require. (See Phila. Co. vs Simp- son, 260° U, S605). Further) an a decision dated September 27, 1910, the Attorney General of the United States held that the establishment of harbor lines does not remove the waters en- closed between them and the shore from the jurisdiction of the United States. for. such se. as may. be re- quired for the aid of navigation, so longasthe owner of the submerged land had not filled in "thereby practically re- moving his land from the body of the river and making it a part of the up- land? He made no decision as to a case in which the fill had actually been made. The powers of the United States in the control and improvement of its navigable waters is paramount over all individual or corporate rights as ripar- ian owner. In a decision rendered June a, IOlA. ih the DPetrict "Court -of . the Northern District of Illinois, in the: case of Franz Tempel vs. United States, Judge Carpenter states: "The title to the bed of the North Branch of the Chicago river in front of Tempel's property, whether in. the state of Illinois or Franz Tempel, was sub- ject to an easement in favor of the United States government, and that any damages, caused by the dredging of said bed, to the bank along the shore line of said Tempel, are only incidental and consequential, for which the United States government is not answerable in damages; : "Said Tempel as a riparian owner along a navigable stream must himself bear the loss of any wearing away of his bank by erosion; eihe North Branch of the Chicago river in front of Tempel's property be- ing a navigable stream the dredging of the bottom of the river bed by the United States government in 1899 did not constitute a taking within the mean- November, 1914 ing of the fifth amendment to the Con- stitution of the United States ;" So, also works for the benefit of navigation may be constructed on lands submerged by the navigable waters, and access to upland shore property may be denied by such works without the owner having any right of compensa- tion against the United States. This entire question is well covered by the following extract from the decis- ion of the Supreme Court of the United States rendered in the October term, 1912, in the case of the United States vs. the Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co. et al. "This title of the owner of fast land upon the shore of a navigable river to the bed of the river is at best a quali- fied one. It is a title which inheres in the ownership of the shore and, unless reserved or excluded by implication, passed with it as a shadow follows a substance, although capable of distinct ownership. It is subordinate to the public right of navigation, and however helpful in protecting the owner against the acts of third parties, is of. no avail against the exercise of the great and absolute power of Congress over the improvement of navigable rivers. That power of use and control comes from the power to regulate commerce _ be- tween the states and with foreign na- tions. It includes navigation, and sub- jects every navigable river to the con- trol of Congress. All means having some positive relation to the end in view. which are not forbidden by some other provision of the Constitution are admissible. If, on the judgment of Congress, the use of the bottom of the river is proper for the purpose of placing therein structures in aid of navi- gation, it is not thereby taking private property for a public use, for the owner's title was in its very nature sub- ject to that use in the interest of public navigation. If. its judgment be that structures placed in the river and upon such submerged land are an obstruction or hindrance to the proper use of the river for purposes of navigation, it may require their removal .and forbid -the use of the bed of the river by the owner in any way which in its judgment is injurious to the dominant right of navigation. So, also, it may permit the construction and maintenance of tunnels under or bridges over the river, and may require the removal of every such structure placed there with or without its license, the element of contract out of the way, which it shall require to be removed, or altered as an obstruction to navigation." The foregoing shows the nature and scope of the laws of the United States for the protection of the people's rights of navigation. Under these laws the nation. improves and maintains the waterways which have to be free and open for the use of all. Just here arises the 'distinction be- tween the functions of the national Oacialis and. those of the state or municipal officials charged with port