CASE NAME: Ill. C. R. Co. v.

Illinois
CITATION: 146 U.S. 387, 13 S. Ct. 110 (1892)
RULE: The soil under navigable waters being held by the people of the state in trust for the common use and as a portion of
their inherent sovereignty, any act of legislation concerning their use affects the public welfare. It is, therefore, appropriately
within the exercise of the police power of the state.
FACTS: In 1869, there was an act passed by the Illinois legislature giving Central Railroad Company title
to the submerged lands in the harbor of Chicago consisting of 1,000 acres used by the public for different
purposes such as navigation, commercial and fishing. The State of Illinois sued the company. The state
sought a decree that confirmed the state’s title to the submerged lands to confirm title and their right to
develop improvements. The appeal reached the United States Supreme Court to decide on the
legislature’s authority to grant such title.
ISSUE: Is the public-trust doctrine valid to prevent the legislature from granting the title?
ANSWER: Yes.
CONCLUSION: The State alleged that the railroad company had encroached upon the domain of the State, and its original
ownership and control of the waters of the harbor and of the lands thereunder, by claiming rights acquired under a grant from
the State and ordinance of the city to enter the city and appropriate land and water two hundred feet wide in order to construct
its facilities, and by claiming riparian rights acquired by virtue of ownership of lands originally bordering on the lake in front of
the city. The State prayed for a decree establishing its title to the bed of Lake Michigan and exclusive rights to develop and
improve the harbor of the city against the claim that the railroad company had an absolute title to the submerged lands by virtue
of the State's legislative act. The Court affirmed the decree in each of the three cases on appeal, with costs against the railroad
company. The railroad company had, upon the land reclaimed, rights as riparian proprietor. As for the ownership of submerged
lands in the harbor, and the right to construct, the court found that the State was the fee owner of the land in its sovereign
capacity and that modification of that sovereignty was inoperative.
URL: https://advance.lexis.com/search/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=d279a5b0-6146-4427-b8f6-
bee6546829c2&pdsearchterms=146+U.S.+387+(1892)&pdstartin=hlct%3A1%3A1&pdtypeofsearch=se
archboxclick&pdsearchtype=SearchBox&pdqttype=and&pdquerytemplateid=&ecomp=532bk&prid=1
e83c897-5f25-4660-9d49-d6afe080aa64&cbc=0
DOC ID: urn:contentItem:3S4X-FKW0-003B-H44X-00000-00