Decker

(after stating the facts as above).

*233 In the recent case of Columbia Canning Company v. Hampton, 161 F. 64 , this court had occasion to consider the claim of right asserted by the locator of land in Alaska which bordered on navigable or tidal waters to occupy the shore between high tide and low tide abutting upon his upland location as a basis for the purpose of carrying on the fishing business in connection with a fish trap extending out into the navigable waters of Lynn Canal. The court held that the littoral right attached to plaintiff’s homestead location entitled him. to free access to the navigable waters of Lynn Canal, but not to build upon the shore or erect any structure reaching out into deep water, so as to obstruct navigation. In support of this rule the court cited Gould on Waters (3d Ed.) par. 149, Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U.S. 371 , 11 S.Ct. 808 , 35 L.Ed. 428 , and Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 58 , 14 S.Ct. 548 , 38 L.Ed. 331 , and said: “It follows, from these authorities, that while the owner or locator of lands in Alaska which border upon navigable or tidal waters has, under the general law, the right of access to such waters for the purpose of navigation, he…