« AnteriorContinuar »
the Subject in the Sea-shores of the Realm, by Robert Gream Hall, of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister;” which was intended by the author as a collection from the text writers, and decided cases, of the principal points of law on the subject; with a commentary upon such of them as would seem to have been rather loosely laid down by the authorities. In deference to the generally admitted authority of Lord Hale's production, he has made it the basis of his own.
Another work was published in London, in 1830, entitled “A Treatise on the Law of Waters and of Sewers,” by Humphrey W. Woolrych, in two parts; the first part relating to the law of waters, and the second embracing the law of sewers. In the first chapter of the law of waters the various rights are enumerated.
Certain rights which may be enjoyed in the sea, and those also which may be had in rivers, are mentioned in the second and third chapters. But throughout a very large portion of the first part of the work which relates to waters, the author's attention is directed to canals, dock companies, mills, water-courses, &c.
In 1839, was republished in Philadelphia * an English work, entitled “An Essay on Aquatic Rights; intended as an illustration of the law relative to Fishing, and to the property of ground or soil produced by alluvion and dereliction in the Sea and Rivers,” by Henry Schultes. This work was suggested, the author informs us, by the difficulties embarrassing the rules of construction of that part of the laws of England, relating to the rights of propriety in fisheries, and the soil of rivers and streams. The work, in the form of its republication above mentioned, embraces but fifty-two octavo pages; but the work is one of much learning and deep research; and the distinctions taken in it between the several kinds of piscarial rights, though, as the author says, on a cursory view, they may appear new, are very perspicuously drawn, and are well supported by legitimate English authority, which, it may be added, is in accordance with American authority.
* In vol. 24 Law Library.
The only work ever published, professedly designed as a full and systematical exposition of the law in this country, in relation to public and private rights in tide waters, and the interests of riparian proprietors connectively with public rights, was the first edition of the present work, though much time has elapsed since that period. To what extent the importance of the subject has been enhanced in the interval, is manifested by the many controversies in which it has been since involved, and by the greatly increased number of adjudged cases consequent thereupon, in further illustration of the subject. By some of these cases it will appear, that questions of grave importance have been earnestly and elaborately argued at the bar, and for the first time have been definitively determined by the bench. The adjudged cases having now become so very numerous, the author has omitted, in the present edition,
to give them all in an Appendix, as they were given in the preceding edition. There are three cases, however, which he now offers, (each at entire length,) in that form; and his reasons for being induced to believe, that this course would be acceptable to the profession, he would beg leave to state to be as follows:
The first case is that of Blundell v. Catterall, in the English Court of King's Bench, in the year 1821, which is important, as deciding that the public have no right, by the common law, to pass over a part of the shore of the sea, which is owned by an individual, for the purpose of bathing; and it is the first and only case in which that right was ever made the subject of controversy. What besides entitles the case to a place in the Appendix, and to the student's particular attention, is an elaborate discussion by each of the judges, in delivering his opinion, of the general principles of law in respect to the right of property in tide waters, in connection with the private rights of riparian proprietors; and a learned review of the early authorities, by which those principles were first established. The want of unanimity in the opinions of the judges gives to it an additional interest.
The next case is that of Martin et al., plaintiffs in error, v. Waddell, defendant in error, in the supreme court of the United States; the opinion and decision in which has special reference to the effect of colonial charters, and the event of the Revolution upon the primâ facie sovereign and public right, by the common law, in and to tide water, and the soil under the same, and the shores thereof. The subject of the controversy is one upon which very learned lawyers have entertained discordant opinions, and one upon which the court itself was divided in opinion ; Justices Thompson and Baldwin both dissenting from the majority, and the former delivering an elaborate opinion in the support of his views, contrary to the views of the majority.
The third case is Pollard's Lessee, plaintiff in error, v. Hagan et al., defendants in error, also in the supreme court of the United States. This case decides the important question, whether the law, as to the rights both of property in tide waters, and of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the same, in the new States, is the same as in the original States. In other words, whether the former, which had been temporarily held by the United States, pass to a. new State, upon its admission into the union. There was also a divided opinion in this case; and the dissenting judge, Mr. J. Catron, concludes his opinion by declaring the controversy to be the most important ever brought before that court, either as it respects the amount of property involved, or the principles upon which the judgment proceeded.
Providence, June 1, 1847.