United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co.

Citations

• 229 U.S. 53
• 33 S. Ct. 667
• 57 L. Ed. 1063
• 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2423

Syllabus

<p>The technical title to the beds of navigable rivers of the United States is either in the States in which the rivers are situated, or in the riparian owners, depending upon the local law.</p> <p>Upon the admission of Michigan as a State into the Union the bed of the St. Marys River passed to the State; under the law of Michigan a conveyance of land bordering upon a navigable river carries the title to the middle thread.</p> <p>The title of the riparian owner to the bed1 of a navigable, stream is a qualified one, and subordinate to the public right of navigation and-subject to the absolute power of Congress over the improvement of navigable rivers.</p> <p>Under the Constitution, Congress can adopt any means for the improvement of navigation that are not prohibited by that instrument itself.</p> <p>Commerce includes navigation and it is for Congress to determine when and to what extent its powers shall be brought into activity. Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713.</p> <p>The judgment of Congress as to whether a construction in or over a navigable river is or is not an obstruction to navigation is an exercise of legislative power and wholly within its control and beyond judicial review; and so held as to the determination of Congress that the whole flow of St. Marys River be directed exclusively to the improvement thereof by the erection of new locks therein.</p> <p>The flow of the stream of a navigable river is in no sense private property, and there is no room for judicial review, at the instance of a private owner of the banks of the stream, of a determination of Congress that such flow is needed for the improvement of navigation.</p> <p>One placing obstructions in a navigable stream under a revocable permit of the Secretary of War doespaot acquire any right to maintain the same longer than the (government continues the license; and an act of Congress revoking the permit does not amount to a taking of private property so far as exclusion from what was covered by