Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

Statement of the Case.

tional means of approaching and using its station-grounds, the spaces and the rights granted to it by the ordinances of the city of Chicago of September 10, 1855, and of September 15, 1856.

The act of the Legislature of Illinois of April 16, 1869, granting to the Illinois Central Railroad Company, its successors and assigns," all the right and title of the State of Illinois in and to the submerged lands constituting the bed of Lake Michigan, and lying east of the tracks and breakwater of the Illinois Central Railroad Company, for the distance of one mile, and between the south line of the south pier extended eastwardly and a line extended eastward from the south line of lot twenty-one, south of and near to the roundhouse and machine shops of said company, in the south division of the said city of Chicago," cannot be invoked so as to extend riparian rights which the company possessed from its ownership of lands in sections 10 and 15 on the lake; and as to the remaining submerged lands, it was not competent for the legislature to thus deprive the State of its ownership of the submerged lands in the harbor of Chicago, and of the consequent control of its waters; and the attempted cession by the act of April 16, 1869, was inoperative to affect, modify, or in any respect to control the sovereignty and dominion of the State over the lands, or its ownership thereof, and any such attempted operation of the act was annulled by the repealing act of April 15, 1873, which to that extent was valid and effective.

There can be no irrepealable contract in a conveyance of property by a grantor in disregard of a public trust, under which he was bound to hold and manage it.

The fee of the made or reclaimed ground between Randolph street and Park Row, embracing the ground upon which rest the tracks and the breakwater of the railroad company south of Randolph street, is in the city, and subject to the right of the railroad company to its use of the tracks on ground reclaimed by it and the continuance of the breakwater, the city possesses the right of riparian ownership, and is at full liberty to exercise it.

The city of Chicago, as riparian owner of the grounds on its east or lake front of the city, between the north line of Randolph street and the north line of block twenty-three, each of the lines being produced to Lake Michigan, and in virtue of authority conferred by its charter, has the power to construct and keep in repair on the lake front, east of said premises, within the lines mentioned, public landing places, wharves, docks and levees, subject, however, in the execution of that power, to the authority of the State to prescribe the lines beyond which piers, docks, wharves and other structures, other than those erected by the general government, may not be extended into the navigable waters of the harbor, and to such supervision and control as the United States may rightfully exercise.

IN EQUITY. These appeals were taken from a decree in a bill or information filed by the State of Illinois against the

Statement of the Case.

Illinois Central Railroad Company, the City of Chicago, and the United States, and a cross bill therein filed by the city against the Railroad Company, the United States and the State. 33 Fed. Rep. 730. The object of the litigation was to determine the rights, respectively, of the State, of the city, and of the Railroad Company in land, submerged or reclaimed, in front of the water line of the city on Lake Michigan.

As the record came to this court the cause was further entitled "The United States Appellant v. The People of the State of Illinois et al., No. 610." On the suggestion of the Solicitor General that the United States had never been a party to these suits in the court below, and had never taken an appeal from the decree, that title was dropped from the opinion of the court.

.

The facts were stated by Mr. Justice Harlan in his opinion in the court below, as follows:1

It is necessary to a clear understanding of the numerous questions presented for determination, that we should first trace the history of the title to these several bodies of lands up to the time when the Illinois Central Railroad was located within the limits of Chicago.

First. As to the lands embraced in the Fort Dearborn Reservation.

In the year 1804 the United States established the military

1 This court, in its opinion, infra, 434, says of this statement: "We agree with the court below that, to a clear understanding of the numerous questions presented in this case, it was necessary to trace the history of the title to the several parcels of land claimed by the company. And the court, in its elaborate opinion, 33 Fed. Rep. 730, for that purpose referred to the legislation of the United States and of the State, and to ordinances of the city and proceedings thereunder, and stated, with great minuteness of detail, every material provision of law and every step taken. We have with great care gone over the history detailed and are satisfied with its entire accuracy. It would, therefore, serve no useful purpose to repeat what is, in our opinion, clearly and fully narrated." After this full endorsement, the Reporter has thought it his duty to make use of this statement, making such few changes, mostly verbal, as have been found necessary to adapt it to the issues settled by the opinion of the court in this case.

Statement of the Case.

post of Fort Dearborn, immediately south of Chicago River, and near its mouth, upon the southwest fractional quarter of section 10. It was occupied by troops as well when Illinois, in 1818, was admitted into the Union, as when Congress passed the act of March 3, 1819, authorizing the sale of certain military sites. By that act it was provided :

"That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, authorized, under the direction of the President of the United States, to cause to be sold such military sites, belonging to the United States, as may have been found, or become, useless for military purposes. And the Secretary of War is hereby authorized, on the payment of the consideration agreed for, into the treasury of the United States to make, execute and deliver all needful instruments conveying and transferring the same in fee; and the jurisdiction, which had been specially ceded, for military purposes, to the United States, by a State, over such site or sites, shall thereafter cease. 3 Stat. 520, c. 88.

In 1824, upon the written request of the Secretary of War, the southwest quarter of fractional section 10, containing about 57 acres, and within which Fort Dearborn was situated, was formally reserved by the Commissioner of the General Land Office from sale and for military purposes. Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 498, 502. The United States admit, and it is also proved, that the lands so reserved were subdivided in 1837 by authority of the Secretary - he being represented by one Matthew Birchard, as special agent and attorney for that purpose-into blocks, lots, streets and public grounds called the "Fort Dearborn Addition to Chicago." And on the 7th day of June, 1839, a map or plat of that addition was acknowledged by Birchard, as such agent and attorney, and was recorded in the proper local office. A part of the ground embraced in that subdivision was marked on the record plat "Public ground forever to remain vacant of buildings."

The plat of that subdivision is substantially reproduced on page 392, as Map A.

The lots designated on this plat were sold and conveyed by the United States to different purchasers. The United States expressly reserved from sale all of the Fort Dearborn Addition

[graphic]

392

Statement of the Case.

(including the ground marked for streets) north of the south line of lot 8 in block 2, lots 4 and 9 in block 4, and lot 5 in block 5, projecting said lines across the adjacent streets. The grounds so specially reserved remained in the occupancy of the General Government for military purposes from 1839 until after 1845. The legal effect of that occupancy appears in United States v. Chicago, 7 How. 185. The city of Chicago having proposed, in 1844, to open Michigan Avenue through the lands so reserved from sale, notwithstanding, at the time, they were in actual use for military purposes, the United States instituted a suit in equity to restrain the city from so doing. It appeared in the case that the agent of the General Government gave notice, at the time of selling the other lots, that the ground in actual use by the United States was not then to be sold. It also appeared that the act of March 4, 1837, incorporating the city of Chicago, and designating the district of country embraced within its limits expressly excepted "the southwest fractional quarter of section 10, occupied as a military post, until the same shall become private property." Ill. Laws, 1837, pp. 38, 74.

The court held that the city had no right to open streets through that part of the ground which, although laid out in lots and streets, had not been sold by the government; that its corporate powers were limited to the part which, by sale, had become private property; and that the streets laid out and dedicated to public use by Birchard, the agent of the Secretary of War, did not, merely by his surveying the land into lots and streets, and making and recording a map or plat thereof, convey the legal estate in such streets to the city, and thereby authorize it to open them for public use, and assume full municipal control thereof. The court held to be untenable the claim of the city that "because streets had been laid down on the plan by the agent [Birchard] part of which extended into the land not sold, those parts had, by this alone, become dedicated as highways and the United States had become estopped to object." Further: "It is entirely unsupported by principle or precedent, that an agent, merely by protracting on the plan those streets into the reserved line and amidst lands not sold,

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »