263-264 " 44 484 897-898 262 Union Pac. R. Co. v. McDonald 434 398 Murphy . Packer 489 489 486 899 490 THE DECISIONS OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, AT OCTOBER TERM, 1893. [Authenticated copy of opinion record strictly followed, except as to such reference words and figures as are inclosed in brackets.] CHARLES W. SHIVELY, Pľ'f. in Err., v. JOHN Q. A. BOWLBY et al. (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 1-58.) Federal question-lands under tide watersvested in the original states-lands in territory -rights of states in tide waters and lands under them-land grant by Congress-conveys no right to lands under tide waters. 1. A state judgment that the grant from the United States passed no title or right, as against the subsequent deeds from the state, in lands below high water mark, is a direct adjudication against the validity of a right or privilege claimed under a law of the United States, and presents a Federal question within the appellate jurisdiction of this court. 2. Lands under tide waters are vested in the sov. ereign for the benefit of the whole people. 8. Upon the American Revolution lands under tide waters, were vested in the original states within their respective borders, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States. 4. Upon the acquisition of a territory by the United States the title and dominion of lands under tide waters passed to the United States, for the benefit of the whole people, and in trust for the several states to be ultimately created out of the territory. 6. The new states admitted into the Union since the adoption of the Constitution have the same rights as the original states in the tide waters, and in the lands under them, within their respective jurisdictions. 6. The United States, while they hold the country as a territory, having all the powers both of national and of municipal government, may grant, for appropriate purposes, titles or rights in the soil below high water mark of tide waters; but they have never done so by general laws. 7. 8. Grants by Congress of portions of the public lands within a territory to settlers thereon, though bordering on or bounded by navigable waters, convey, of their own force, no title or right below high water mark, and do not impair the title and dominion of the future state when created. A donation land claim, bounded by the Columbia river, and laid out and recorded under an Act of Congress, includes no title or right in the land below high water mark; and the statutes of Oregon, providing for the sale of title lands, etc., are a constitutional and legal exercise by the state of Oregon of its dominion over the lands under navigable waters. [No. 787.] Submitted Dec. 2, 1892. Decided March 5, 1894. IN ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon, to review a judgment of that court, affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court for the County of Clatsop and State of Oregon, in a suit in equity, brought by John Q. A. Bowlby et al., plaintiffs, against Charles W. Shively et al., to quiet the title to lands below Kennedy v. Hunt, 12:829, and to St. Clair County v. Lovingston, 23: 59. As to right of the United States and the states to shore lands and accretions against piers, see note to Hallett v. Beebe, 14: 35. As to what is seashore; how far lands bounded on, As to furisdiction of United States Supreme Court to declare state law void as in conflict with state con-extend, see note to United States v. Pacheco, 17: 865. stitution; to revise decrees of state courts as to construction of state laws, see note to Hart v. Lamphire, 7:679, and to Commercial Bank of Cincinnati v. Buckingham, 12: 169. As to alluvion or accretion and reliction; right to, and ownership of; by what law title to is determined; rule of division among riparian owners, see note to As to title to water by appropriation; common law rule; rule of mining states, see note to Atchison v. Peterson, 22: 414. As to navigable waters; what are, in United States; streams and inland waters as highways, SEO note to United States v. The Montello, 22: 391. |