The Legal War Against River Traps
A legal opinion from Judge Scott challenges the right of private interests to use fishing traps on tidal lands, arguing they violate public trust.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Judge Scott gives it as his opinion that traps have no legal right to exist. The Judge made a splendid fight in Mrs. Larsen's case against McGowan, and the precedent established shows conclusively that every man who has been damaged in any way by a trap can collect damages. In regard to the right of any state to sell land for fishing purposes which are covered twice every 24 hours by the tide, he holds it cannot be done. While the United States recognizes the sovereignty of the respective states, the presumption is, and always has been, that fishing privileges are held for the use of the public at large by the state, and henceforth cannot be disposed of to any individual without violating the trust reposed in them.
“The presumption is, and always has been, that fishing privileges are held for the use of the public at large.”
The conflict over who 'owns' the water and tidal access rights was a massive legal and social battle in 19th-century Washington. These debates prefigured modern fights over tribal fishing rights and the privatization of coastal resources.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.