OCR Text |
Show -57- In a controversy between a state and one of its public service corporations, the Court ruled that the riparian states hold the lands under navigable waters of the Great Lakes by the same right and title, and subject to the same trusts, and limitations, which prevail as to-dominion and sovereignty over, and ownership of lands under, tide waters on the borders of the sea.136 An insignificant case between individuals quarreling over land submerged by the tides and the waters of the Columbia River at Astoria, Oregon, reached the highest tribunal clothed in such amazing diversity of legal argument as to call forth the most elaborate and comprehensive opinion upon water rights which has ever yet been written by any American court. In this decision the United States Supreme Court clearly reaffirms the right of the states to dominion and sovere- - ignty over waters within their borders and lands under such waters, in public trust for the benefit of their respective inhabitants and to be administered as they shall provide,, subject only to the rights given up by all the states equally to the United States under the federal constitution or retained or grant- ed away by preceding sovereigns.137 And a little later these principles were for the well being thereof and for domestic uses." 7 Thorpe's Constitutions, 4l43* (Italics added*) Wyoming was admitted into the Union in the year 1890. Act of July 10, 1890, c. 644., 26 Stat. at L 222, 7 Thorpe's Constitutions, 4111. In the same year in which Idaho and Wyoming came into the Union, Congress passed an act, Act of Sept. 19, 1890, c. 907, Par. 10, 26 Stat. at L 426, 454 providing "That the creation of any obstruction, not affirmatively authorized by law, to the navigable capacity of any waters, in respect of which the United States has jurisdiction, is hereby prohibited." This act applies to obstructions, dams, and the like, non-navigable streams tributary to navigable waters if navi- gability is thereby adversely affected. United States v« Rio Grande Dam & Irr. Co,, 174 U.S. 690, 19 Sup. Ct. 770, 43 L. Ed* 1136 (1899), rev'g 9 N, M, 292, 51 Pac, 674 (1898). ^ United States v. Texas, l43 U.S. 621, 12 Sup. Ct, 488, 36 L. Ed. 285 (1892), 162 U.S. 1, 16 Sup. Ct. 725, 40 L. Ed 867 (1896)5 Indiana v. Kentucky, 136 U. S« 479* 10 Sup. Ct. 1051, 34 L. Ed. 329 (1890), 159 U. S. 275* 16 Sup. Ct. 320, 40 L, Ed, l49 (1895), 163 U, S. 520, 16 Sup, Ct. 13.62, U L. Ed* 2^0 (I896), I67 U. S« 270, 17 Sup. Ct, 990, I42 L. Ed, 161+ (1897); Nebraska v. Iowa, li+3 U.S. 359, 12 Sup, Ct. 396, 36 L. Ed, 186 (1892), ife U, S. 519, 12 Sup. Ct. 976, 36 L* Ed. 798, (1892)* . ^Knight v. United Land Ass»n, ll£ U. S* l6l, 12 Sup. Ct. 258, 35 L, Ed. 974 (1891)• A prior treaty with Indian tribes is also above the sovereignty of a sta-te later created. United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 25 Sup. Ct. 662, I4.9 L.. Edo 1089 (199?); Winters v. United States, 207 U. S. 56!^, 28 Sup. Ct. 207, 52 L. Ed. 3I4.O (1908), aff'g 1J4.8 Fed. 68I4. (CCA. 9th Cir. I906) 0 156 J Illinois Central R.R. v. Illinois, li+6 U.S. 387, 13 Sup, ct. 110, 36 L« Ed. 1018 (I892), . 1^Shively v. BowJby, 152 U.S. 1, lU Sup, Ct. 5^8, 38 L. Ed. 331 (1&&): The Court summarized its conclusions as follows: |