This Court cannot take judicial notice of the nature and extent
of tidelands or mud flats.
Land alternately covered and uncovered by the tide is strictly
within the description of tidelands, and is covered by the settled
rule in respect to such lands.
Mann v. Tacoma Land Company, ante, 153 U. S. 273,
followed.
The case is stated in the opinion. This case was argued with
Mann v. Tacoma Land Company, ante, 153 U. S. 273,
where will be found the argument of Mr. Mitchell for the plaintiff
in error.
MR. JUSTICE BREWER delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case comes before us on error to the Supreme Court of
Washington. The questions are mainly similar to those in the case
of
Mann v. Tacoma Land Company, just decided.
The plaintiff described the land in his complaint as
"at the time of its selection by said plaintiff, unoccupied and
unappropriated public land of the United States not mineral, in
this, that the said tract of land was situated in the Territory of
Washington, was a portion of the tide flats, covered and uncovered
by the ebb and flow of the tide, was uncovered at
Page 153 U. S. 288
ordinary low tide, and was covered with water at ordinary high
tide, and had never been set apart by the United States for any
particular use."
This shows that the land at the time of its entry was, strictly
speaking, tidelands, and, with this as the sole description, there
would be nothing to distinguish the case from the one just decided.
There is, however, this further description:
"Beginning at a point 688 feet south and 660 feet west of the
east one-fourth post of Sec. 6, Tp. 24 N., R. 4 E., W. M., thence
west 150 feet, thence south 210 feet, thence east 150 feet, thence
north 210 feet to place of beginning, being the premises covered by
Moran Brothers Company's foundry and machine shops."
Upon this, plaintiff contends that the premises are not to be
taken as a part of the shore or tidelands bordering on navigable
water, inasmuch as they are shown to be devoted to manufacturing
uses; that this Court will take judicial knowledge of what are
known as "mud flats," lying on and adjacent to the waters of Puget
Sound, and that the land in dispute is a part of a large tract of
over 3,000 acres of such "mud flats," extending for a distance of
from two and one-half miles in length to three miles in width, on
the outskirts of a bay on Puget Sound, and near the City of
Seattle, as shown by the official maps of the United States Coast
and Geodetic Survey. But the averment of the complaint is that the
land was unoccupied at the time of its selection by the plaintiff,
and its condition as a part of the shore or tidelands is not
changed by the magnitude of the surrounding tract which, covered
and uncovered by the flow and ebb of the tide, exists between the
upland and navigable waters, or the use to which it may
subsequently be put.
We do not understand that we can take judicial notice of the
nature and extent of the tidelands or "mud flats" in the vicinity
of this particular tract. Even if we could, or if the area thereof
was shown to be as great as is stated by counsel in the brief, it
would not change the fact that the land thus alternately covered
and uncovered, and between the dry upland and the navigable water,
is land which may be used in facilitating approach to the navigable
waters from the upland,
Page 153 U. S. 289
and is strictly within the description of "tidelands," and
covered by the rule in respect to such lands.
We see nothing to distinguish this case from the one just
decided, and therefore the judgment of the Supreme Court of the
State of Washington is
Affirmed.