Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/30

14 14 HARVARD LAW REVIEW, familiar statute liens, why would it not be well to abolish by- statute the present artificial and obscure forms of mortgage con- tract, the net result of the operation of which no one can define, and to provide for a return to a brief and simple deed of pledge, such as ingenuity has led us away from? H, W. Chaplin, Boston, March, 1890. THE RIGHT OF ACCESS AND THE RIGHT TO WHARF OUT TO NAVIGABLE WATER, THE right to wharf out to navigable water is unknown to the common law of England. The erection of a wharf upon public lands without the consent of the Crown is a purpresture.^ There is, however, in the English law what is known as the riparian right of access, incident to lands bordering upon naviga- ble waters. The celebrated case of Lyon v. Fishmongers' Com- pany ^ has been understood to decide that this *' right of access," like the riparian right to the appropriation and beneficial use of running water, is a " natural right," dependent solely on natural relations.^ The words of Lord Selborne in that case have been quoted as applicable to the right in question : " The rights of a riparian proprietor, so far as they relate to any natural stream, exist jure naturcEy because his land has by nature the advantage of being washed by the stream." * Lord Selborne said, with reference to this right : ** The cases as to the alterations of the levels of public highways . . . seem to be authorities a fortiori . . . because they had not in them the element of a right/wr^ naturcsy ^ These decisions contain almost the only explanation thus far offered in the cases of the origin and nature of the English right of access, and this fact, together with the fact that most riparian rights are " natural rights," necessitates for the proper classifica- 1 Gould on Waters, § 21, and authorities cited. 2 I App. Cas. 662. 8 Lake Superior Land Co. v. Emerson, 38 Minn. 406.
 * I App. Cas. 682 (quoted in Lake Superior Land Co. v. Emerson, supra),
 * I App. Cas. 684 (quoted in Lake Superior Land Co. v, Emerson, supra).