In the very recent case of Knight v. Association, Mr. Justice Lamar, in delivering judgment, said: It is the settled rule of law in this court that absolute property in, and dominion and sovereignty over, the soils under the tide waters in the original states, were reserved to the several states, and that the new states since admitted have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction, in that behalf, as the original states possess within their respective borders. Upon the acquisition of the territory from Mexico, the United States acquired the title to tide lands, equally with the title to upland; but with respect to the former they held it only in trust for the future states that might be erected out of such territory. 142 U.S. 183, 12 Sup. Ct. 258. In support of these propositions he referred to Martin v. Waddell, Pollards Lessee v. Hagan, Mumford v. Wardwell, and Weber v. Commissioners, above cited. In that case, it was further held, as it had previously been declared in San Francisco v. Le Roy, above cited, that this doctrine does not apply to lands that had been previously granted to other parties by the former government, or subjected to trusts which would require their disposition in some other way; and that, when the United States acquired California from Mexico by the treaty, they were bound by its stipulations, and by the principles of international law, to protect all rights of property acquired under previous lawful grants from the Mexican government, (142 U.S. 183, 184, 12 S. Sup. Ct. 258;)... famguardian.org/Publications/PropertyRights/sovlnd.html
Posted on: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 17:12:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015